P L D 1965 W (PLP)
BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL MAJID ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL MAJID ETC.‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 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 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL MAJID ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Hussain for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10‑Collector, on reference of case under S. 10 (4), to sanction whole scheme and not only disputed khata‑Assistant Consolidation Officer is competent to pass order under S. 10 (3) and not under S. 10 (4).
Judgment & Decree
Respondents in person. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the of March, 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, whereby he rejected the revision filed by the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad. The facts of the case are that the petitioners got land of their choice from the A.C.O. and Bashir Ahmad himself signed the khata while Muhammad Din petitioner thumb‑marked it. A reference was made to the Collector under section 10 (4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and the A. D. C., (Consolidation) passed orders in respect of the parties whereby the original proposal made by the A. C. O., was confirmed. The peti tioners went in revision to the Additional Commissioner (Consolida tion) but the revision was rejected. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at great length and have examined the record. The petitioner Bashir Ahmad signed the khata. The only explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that he signed it when the entries were in pencil and he was given land in Sq. No.
22. I do not find any such over‑writing in Register Taqsim. Bashir Ahmad signed under the writing of the A.C.O., in which no figure was ever written with pencil. I, therefore, see no force in this conten tion of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that under section 10 (4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the Collector could take up only disputed khatas. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. When a case is referred to the Collector under section 10 (4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the whole scheme has to be sanctioned by the Collector. The A.C.O., is competent to pass orders under section 10 (3) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960. No orders can, therefore, be passed by the A.C.O., under section 10 (4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The last request of the learned counsel for the petitioners was to the effect that, if he is not given the remaining portion of Sq. No. 22 which has been given to Abdul Majid respondent, he might be sent back to Sq. No.
17. If this request is acceded to, persons now, settled in Sq. No 17 will be dislocated for no fault of theirs. It is too late to make this request at this stage. It is true that Abdul Majid left his land in Sq, No. 20 and came to Sq. No. 22 but this was done with the consent of the petitioners and then he got the area which had been left by his brother, Muhammad Iqbal. In these circumstances I see no justification for any interference. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby: S. Q. Petition dismissed.