P L D 1963 W (PLP)
MURAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SIKANDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1963 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MURAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SIKANDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 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 1963 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 1963 W (PLP) (MURAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SIKANDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fazle Elahi for Petitioner.
- N. M. Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 121 & 122-- Partition‑Mere fact that possession is not taken by share‑holders after conclusion of partition proceedings does not mean that parti tion has yet to take place.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 121 & 122-- Partition‑Mere fact that possession is not taken by share‑holders after conclusion of partition proceedings does not mean that parti tion has yet to take place. Fazle Elahi for Petitioner. N. M. Khan for Respondent. This revision has been preferred against an order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, who seems to have held that a partition is not complete unless possession is handed over to the parties. An order was passed in this particular case by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 8‑1‑1959 finally sanctioning the partition, which had been carried out in accordance with the mode of partition already approved. The Revenue Officer of the circle was simultaneously directed to draw up an instrument of partition. A reference to the provision of section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act will clear the position regarding when a partition is held to be completed. This section runs as follows :‑ "When a partition is completed the Revenue Officer shall cause an instrument of partition to be prepared and the date on which the partition is to take effect to be recorded therein." The next section i.e., 122 further clarifies that delivery of posses sion is a matter subsequent to the conclusion of partition proceedings. The learned Additional Commissioner did not interpret letter No. ASR 403‑59/2997‑LC, dated the 20th July, 1959 from the Secretary, West Pakistan Land Commissioner correctly. In this letter it is stated that if only the mode of partition had been sanctioned and partition had yet to take place the provision of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 will become operative. In the particular case under consideration the partition proceedings had concluded and the fact that possession of their shares had not been taken over by the parties does not mean that the partition had yet to take place. I would, therefore, accept the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of passed by the Collector. K. M. A. Revision petition.