P L D 1966 W (PLP)
RAJ KUMAR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | RAJ KUMAR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
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) (RAJ KUMAR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dharamdas Moolchand for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959, para. 15‑-- Joint Hindu family‑Petitioner not shown as Manager in Form VI, Manual of Village Accounts for Sind‑Cannot be treated as owner and allowed to retain area claimed.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959, para. 15‑-- Joint Hindu family‑Petitioner not shown as Manager in Form VI, Manual of Village Accounts for Sind‑Cannot be treated as owner and allowed to retain area claimed. Dharamdas Moolchand for Petitioner. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 17th of July 1959, passed by Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner which he had preferred against an order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner in Tharparkar District who had filed the Forms LC‑I and LC‑II put in by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that the petitioner put in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II claiming himself to be an owner. Enquiries revealed that his name was not entered as an owner in any of the revenue records. The Deputy Land Commissioner ordered that the petitioner would not be allowed to retain any area. The petitioner went in appeal to the Land Commissioner but his appeal was also rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has drawn my attention to paragraph 8 at page 49 of the Manual of Village Accounts for Sind which lays down that "in the case of a joint Hindu family, the name of the principal member of the family who manages the estate, should be shown as Manager in column II" of Village Form VI. Arguments were partly heard and the case was adjourned till today when it was expected that the petitioner's counsel will be able to show me documents in which the father of the petitioner was entered as a Manager of the joint Hindu family. I 'have been shown some documents which show the father, Choeth Ram Kalyan Das, as a member of the joint Hindu family. It is true that the Manager will be a member of joint Hindu family but it cannot be said that every member of the joint Hindu family is a manager. The directions given in the Manual of Village Revenue Accounts for Sind mentioned above clearly lay down that in column II, the name of that member only will be entered as a Manager who, besides being the principal member of the joint Hindu family, also manages his estate. There is no entry which would show Choeth Ram Kalyan Das as the Manager of the joint Hindu family. In these circumstances, no interference is called for. The revision fails and is rejected hereby. S. Q. Revision rejected.