P L D 1959 W (PLP)
JAN MUHAMMAD and others‑Petitioners Versus NAWAZ KHAN etc. ‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | JAN MUHAMMAD and others‑Petitioners Versus NAWAZ KHAN etc. ‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (JAN MUHAMMAD and others‑Petitioners Versus NAWAZ KHAN etc. ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (XVIII of 1956), S. 38‑--Evacuee land‑--Question whether certain persons are occupancy tenants or not should be referred to the Custodian.
Judgment & Decree
S. 38‑--Evacuee land‑--Question whether certain persons are occupancy tenants or not should be referred to the Custodian. Muhammad Anwar Khan for Petitioners. The petitioners admit that the land in question belonged toy evacuees. They wanted a declaration to the effect that they are occupancy tenants in this land. The Assistant Collector who tried the suit should have really held his hand and directed they petitioners to go before the Custodian of Evacuee Property forA the acceptance of their claim under the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance. Of course, it was possible that the Custodian might have said that he would first prefer to wait till the suit in the Revenue Court was decided in favour of the petitioners The petitioners' request stands rejected at present in accordance with the Commissioner's order dated 15th February 1956. I am of the opinion that I should not consider the merits of this case at this stage. I shall leave the petitioners to move the Custodian under the relevant section of the said Ordinance. If the Custodian express the view that he would not pass orders till the present case has been finally decided by me, I shall start looking into this case. The petition for revision is, therefore, consigned to the office Record Room without a date for the next hearing. The prayer for the issue of a stay order about the ejectment of the petitioners is rejected, because I am not competent to issue directions to the Rehabilitation Commissioner K. M. A.