P L D 1966 W (PLP)
UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Nawab MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN ETC — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Nawab MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN ETC — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (UMAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Nawab MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN ETC — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mahmood Ali Qasuri and Saeed‑ur‑Rahman for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, paras. 4(3), 7 & 19 ‑ Gifts of land validated by competent authority‑No tenant has right to question validity or otherwise unless land in his possession was resumed under para.
19. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, paras. 4(3), 7 & 19 ‑ Gifts of land validated by competent authority‑No tenant has right to question validity or otherwise unless land in his possession was resumed under para.
19. Petitioner in person. Mahmood Ali Qasuri and Saeed‑ur‑Rahman for Respondents. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 18th of April 1961, passed by the Land Commissioner, Peshawar, whereby he validated the gifts made by Nawab Sir Muhammad Farid Khan in favour of his sister, wife, daughter‑in‑law and his son. The petitioner is alleged to be a tenant of a portion of the land. The question as to whether any alienation is valid or not is exclusively the concern of the donor, the donee and the State. No tenant has any right to question the validity or otherwise of a gift which has been validated by a competent authority. A right accrues to a tenant only when the land in his possession has been resumed under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and the provisions of paragraph 19 thereof have become applicable. Before that, stage is reached, no tenant has any right to come up to any Land Commission authority for making any request. In this case, the land has not been resumed. No action under paragraph 19 can be taken. Therefore, no right accrues to the tenant.
2. Moreover, the revision is also time‑barred and, under the existing instructions of the Land Commission, the delay cannot be condoned. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.