P L D 1966 W (PLP)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Petitioners Versus QADIR BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SARDAR MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Petitioners Versus QADIR BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑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) (SARDAR MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Petitioners Versus QADIR BAKHSH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Manan for Petitioner.
- M. Z. Burki for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, paras. 46 & 46‑A ‑ Female getting land as grant from Settlement Authorities ‑ Succession governed by para. 46‑Paragraph 46‑A applies to limited owners under custom.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, paras. 46 & 46‑A ‑ Female getting land as grant from Settlement Authorities ‑ Succession governed by para. 46‑Paragraph 46‑A applies to limited owners under custom. Abdul Manan for Petitioner. M. Z. Burki for Respondents. This is a second revision petition against an order dated 9‑10‑64 passed ` by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was accepted. The facts of the case are that Mst. Umri, who got land under the Resettlement Scheme, died in 1956, and mutation No. 1889 was sanctioned on 9‑4‑57 with regard to the property left by her. Qadir Bux and Mst. Rani respondent filed an appeal before the D. R. C. (Land) who accepted the appeal and directed that the mutation should be sanctioned under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act. The mutation was accordingly sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 22‑1‑
60. Sardar Muhammad one of the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector and the case was remanded. Another mutation was sanctioned on 19‑8‑1961. The respon dents went in appeal to the Collector but the appeal was dismissed. A Revision was then filed before the Additional Commissioner, who accepted the revision and directed that the property left by Mst. Umri should be mutated in the names of her heirs and not the heirs of her husband. The position is quite clear. Mst. Umri got this land from the Resettlement Authorities and it has to be considered as a grant. This view has already been held by my learned pre decessor in P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 54, A reliance has been placed in the ruling given by the High Court and the Supreme Court. If Mst. Umri had got the property as a grantee, succession is to be governed by para.
46. The learned counsel for, the respondent contended that in this case para. 46‑A should be applied. This para. is applicable to cases of those females who are limited owners under the Customary Law. In this case Mst. Umri got a grant and para. 46‑A is not, therefore, applicable. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.