P (PLP)
QAZI MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN‑Applicant, Versus MUHAMMAD GHAUS etc.‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | QAZI MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN‑Applicant, Versus MUHAMMAD GHAUS etc.‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (QAZI MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN‑Applicant, Versus MUHAMMAD GHAUS etc.‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑--Sehat Indraj‑--Long‑standing entries in Revenue Records ‑No authority to change‑Recourse to competent Civil or Revenue Court. The Assistant Collector and the Collector have no authority to change the long‑standing entries in the revenue records by passing a mutation of Sehat Indraj. According to these records the respondents were joint owners and possessors of the land of the kas with the whole proprietary body, including the petitioner, and if they have drawn water from the kas that does not mean they are in physical possession of it to the exclusion of the petitioner or the proprietary body. The respondents under the circumstances should have recourse to a competent civil or Revenue Court. Sajjad Hussain Jafry, for the petitioner. Mushtaq Hussain Munir, for the respondent.
Judgment & Decree
This is a reference case received from the Commissioner, Rawalpindi division, who recommends that the petition for revision be accepted and the Collector Attock's order, dated 12th April 1944, upholding the order, dated 11th January 1944, passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Attock, sanctioning mutation in favour of the respondents, be set aside. The facts of this case are given in the order of the learned Commis sioner. I agree with the learned Commissioner that the Assistant Collector and the Collector in this case had no authority to change the long standing entries in the revenue records by passing a mutation of sehat indraj. According to these records the respondents were joint owners and joint possessors of the land of the kas with the whole proprietary body including the petitioner. If the respondents have drawn water from the kas that does not mean they are in physical possession of it to the exclusion of the petitioner or the proprietary body. If the respondents have any difficulty in regard to any rights in the use of water drawn from the kas to the exclusion of other owners according to the wajib‑ul‑arz they should have recourse, to a competent civil or revenue Court. The Assistant Collector committed a material irregularity in changing old entries in revenue records in the way he did, and his order as wall as the order passed by the Collector are, therefore, clearly unsustainable. I accept this petition for revision, set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector, Attock, and order that the old entries in the revenue records be allowed to stand. A. H. Revision accepted.