P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)
WAHID BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus THE MULTAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MULTAN
| Citation | P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | WAHID BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus THE MULTAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MULTAN |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) (WAHID BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus THE MULTAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MULTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. R. Shaikh for Petitioners.
- Mian Muhammnd Shafi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑Sanctioned on basis of registered document Subsequently party alleging that agreement was obtained by misrepresentation‑Order of mutation not to be upset‑Aggrieved party may seek his remedy in Court.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. 76 of 1959‑60, decided on 25th April 1960, District Multan. Mutation‑Sanctioned on basis of registered document Subsequently party alleging that agreement was obtained by misrepresentation‑Order of mutation not to be upset‑Aggrieved party may seek his remedy in Court. A. R. Shaikh for Petitioners. Mian Muhammnd Shafi for Respondent. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent by which he relinquished 16 kanals of land and was to become the full owner of the remaining 24 kanals. This agreement was registered on 21‑3‑1955. Mutations Nos. 3979 and 3980 were attested on 7‑7‑
55. In August 1956, it was contended that the petitioner on the misrepresentation that he was an occupancy tenant, although he was a tenant‑at‑will, obtained the agreement. The Collector permitted the review of orders dated 7‑7‑
55. On review the Assistant Collector cancelled the mutations by his orders dated 27‑4‑
57. This order was confirmed by the Collector on appeal and by the Additional Commissioner in revision. In Revenue Decisions Punjab 1950, page 1015, it was held that "no question of correction can arise in a case like this where one party objects strongly to the new entry. If there has, in fact, been a mistake made, owing to a mutation order, and if that mistake has been incorporated in the revenue records, the only way to correct the mistake is by way of regular suit." The Additional Commissioner has relied on P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) page
826. In that case certain entries existed in the revenue records for 1893‑
94. In the record‑of‑rights for 1895‑96, the entries were altered. There was nothing on the record to explain the alteration. No mutation order was forthcoming as was alleged to have been made. It would thus appear that the facts of that case were different, because in the present case the entries were made as a result of orders passed in regular mutations. The result is that the petition is allowed and mutations Nos. 3979 and 3980 are restored as originally sanctioned, leaving it to the party who contests them to go to the Civil Court. K. M. A. Petition allowed.