P L D 1966 W (PLP)
CHUTTA‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | CHUTTA‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑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) (CHUTTA‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.
- Mumtaz Hussain for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 19 read with Sales Scheme (Land Reforms)‑Tenants not in possession of resumed land in Kharif 1958, and Rabi 1959, nor in any prior harvest‑Held, not entitled to purchase such land.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 19 read with Sales Scheme (Land Reforms)‑Tenants not in possession of resumed land in Kharif 1958, and Rabi 1959, nor in any prior harvest‑Held, not entitled to purchase such land. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner. Mumtaz Hussain for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 24th of July 1963, passed by the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby he accepted the review petition filed by the respondent. The facts of the case are that the land in dispute was sold to the petitioner by the Assistant Land Commissioner. The respondent went in appeal to the Deputy Land Commissioner, but it was rejected. He then filed a revision before the Land Commissioner which was also dismissed. Subsequently, the respondent alongwith five other tenants moved the Land Commissioner for reviewing his orders. The Land Commissioner sought permission of the Chief Land Commissioner and it was given. He then reviewed the previous orders, cancelled the sale in favour of the petitioner and directed that it should be sold to the respondent in accordance with the instructions issued by the Land Commissioner. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the: parties and have examined the record. Neither the petitioner nor the respondent were in possession of the land in dispute in Kharif 1958 and Rabi 1959, nor in any harvest prior to that. Neither of them is, therefore, to get the land under sales scheme. I, therefore, accept the revision entitled and cancel the allotment made in favour of the respondent. The land in dispute can be utilised, if permissible under the upgrading scheme and the claims of the parties can then be considered. S. Q. Revision accepted.