P L D 1971 Supreme Court 430 (PLP)
KHARAITEY AND 2 OTHERS-Appellants Versus BORDER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1971 Supreme Court 430 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | (a) West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 M. L. R. (Zone B) No. 9, paras. 10 (o) & 15 and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Order of Border Area Committee (cancelling allotment) made after 8.6-1962 i.e. after commencement of Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Not immune from attack and open to judicial review under Art. 98. |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | KHARAITEY AND 2 OTHERS-Appellants Versus BORDER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1971 Supreme Court 430 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1971 Supreme Court 430 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the (a) West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 M. L. R. (Zone B) No. 9, paras. 10 (o) & 15 and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Order of Border Area Committee (cancelling allotment) made after 8.6-1962 i.e. after commencement of Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Not immune from attack and open to judicial review under Art. 98. bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1971 Supreme Court 430 (PLP) (KHARAITEY AND 2 OTHERS-Appellants Versus BORDER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND 2 OTHERS -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Abdul Mannan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Salim Ahmad Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 30th April 1971. .
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th April 1966, in Writ Petition No. 574 of 1964). (a) West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 [M. L. R. (Zone B) No. 9], paras. 10 (o) & 15 and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Order of Border Area Committee (cancelling allotment) made after 8.6-1962 i.e. after commencement of Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Not immune from attack and open to judicial review under Art.
98. Muhammad Khan v. Border Allotment Committee P L D 1965 S C 623 distinguished. Mehr Din v. Border Area Committee P L D 1970 S C 311 ref. (b) West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 [M. L. R. (Zone B) No. 9], para. 10 (a)-Allotment validly made in favour of P (eligible for allotment under Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme or Border Scheme)-Border Committee under para. 10 (a) not empowered to cancel allotment from names of persons inheriting land from P after his death-Question of inheritance including mode of succession -Not a matter for Border Area Committee to decide nor Border Area Committee competent to annul or modify mutation finally authenticated by competent Revenue Authority. P, a displaced person was allotted land in the border area against his verified claim. Thereafter P died issueless and on his death mutation was attested in favour of his three nephews and this mutation was finally authenticated by the competent Revenue Authority. On receipt of a complaint that the mutation was obtained by misrepresentation, the Border Area Committee cancelled part of allotment, holding that the three nephews were entitled to only 3/8th share of the land allotted to P. The Supreme Court, however, held, that the question of inheritance as to who were the heirs of P and what was the extent of their respective share, was not a matter for the Border Area Committee to decide nor was the Border Area Committee competent to annul or modify a mutation finally authenticated by competent Revenue Authority. If, apart from the three nephews, there was, at all, any other heir of P for which it was thought necessary to review the mutation, the Border Area Committee should have, instead of making the impugned order, referred the matter to the authority competent to modify the mutation. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 : Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
person was found to be eligible for allotment of land and the disputed land lying within the border belt was accordingly allotted to him. Thus, there was nothing wrong in the allot -I_ ??????????????????????? of the disputed land in favour of Pindu. As Pindu was B eli;ible for allotment, paragraph 10 (a) is inapplicable in this case and, for that reason, the Border Area Committee was not empowered to cancel some land out of the allotment from the names of the appellants who claim to have inherited it from Pindu. In cancelling land in 5/8th share, the Border Area Committee decided the question of inheritance, namely, as to who are the heirs of Pindu and what is the extent of their respective inherited shares. The question of inheritance includ? ing the mode of succession was not a matter for the Border Area Committee to decide. Admittedly, the appellants obtained mutation in respect of the entire land allotted to Pindu and the same was duly authenticated by the competent Revenue Authority on 7-9-1955. By the impugned order, the Border Area Committee not only decided the question of inheritance and the mode of succession, but also virtually decided that the mutation in favour of the appellants was wrong. With regard to the mutation, the Border Area Committee concluded "Taking the above accumulatively into consideration it is therefore apparent that the attestation of th: mutation con?ferring the right of succession of the property entirely in favour of three individuals is wrong as the rights of the remaining shareholders have been ignored apparently due to mis?representation made by this party." It is needless to say that the Border Area Committee is not competent to annul or modify a mutation finally authenticated by the competent Revenue Authority. Of course, the Border Area Committee sent a copy of its impugned order to the Revenue Authority concerned to enable them to review the mutation. But this was done apparently to carry into effect the Border Area Committee's finding with regard to inheritance and mode of succession and its order cancelling the allotment in 5/8th share, which the committee, in the facts of this case, was not competent to make. For these reasons, the learned Judges of the High Court were not right in taking the view that there was no lack of jurisdiction or 3~?>..;~.r in. .ht~ Border Area Committee to cancel the allotment in excess of entitlement C of the appellants. If, apart from t.-~e appellants there was, at all, any other heir of Pindu :_,a- r~ii-..la ~> ~.v:3.-, br~,~F~g'zt necessary to review the mutation in favour of ~~ -~l_:~c;19:rits, the border Area Committee should have, instead of making the impugned order, referred the matter to the authority competent to modify the mutation. Both the grounds relied on by the learned Judges having been found to be untenable, their judgment cannot be sustained. I would, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. Powever, having regard to the points of law involved, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-I agree. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-I agree. Appeal accepted.