P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ALLAH YAR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ALLAH YAR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
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, 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 1966 W (PLP) (ALLAH YAR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Zamir Zaidi for Petitioners.
- Mian Faqir Muhammad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation ‑ Possession‑Uncultivated land ordered by Collec tor to be shown in possession of owners‑Order, held, to be right and just.
Judgment & Decree
S. M. Zamir Zaidi for Petitioners. Mian Faqir Muhammad for Respondents. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 13th of January 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who while exercising powers of a Commissioner, rejected the first revision preferred by the petitioners. Briefly the facts of the case are that there were some disputes about the actual cultivation of certain Khasra numbers and the Assistant Collector 2nd grade entered mutations in respect of dispute about cultivation and sanctioned them according to the result of his enquiries. The petitioners filed two appeals before the Revenue Assistant who dealt with them under the powers of the Collector with which he had been invested. The parties with their counsel were heard and the Collector also visited the spot. He found that only a portion of the land in dispute measuring 11 Kanals and 6 Marlas was under the cultivation of the respondents. The rest was uncultivated. He partially accepted the appeals and directed that, in respect of 11 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land in Khasra No. 563, the entry should be about the cultivating possession of the respondents and the rest of the area should be shown as in the possession of the owners. The petitioners filed two appeals before the Additional Commissioner who treated them as revisions and rejected them. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Collector made a very just decision. So far as the cultivated land was concerned, he ordered that the entry should be as in the possession of the respondents. The rest of the land, which was uncultivated, could not be in the exclusive possession of any co‑sharer. It was, therefore, rightly ordered that it should be shown as Maqbooza Malikan (as in the possession of the owners). In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.