1973 PLP 230 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND 5 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1973 PLP 230 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND 5 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 230 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 230 (SCMR)?
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: 1973 PLP 230 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND 5 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Attorney for Petitioners.
- M. Yaqub Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, Attorney for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 7th. October 1966.
- Yusuf Ali Khan, Advocate High Court (M. S. Baqir, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Salim Ahmad Malik,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order. of the High Court of West Pakistan Lahore, dated the 27th April 1966, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 363 of 1965). Rehabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme, paras. 46 & 46‑A Inheritance‑Succession to estate of deceased determined after amendment of paras. 46 & 46‑A entitling son of deceased daughter of right‑holder to be Included in list of heirs‑Petitioners' suit for declaration of their being exclusive heirs of deceased also dismissed by civil Court‑Respondent's claim to inheritance being in accord with terms of para. 46, respondent, held, rightly given share In land. Yusuf Ali Khan, Advocate High Court (M. S. Baqir, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Salim Ahmad Malik,
Judgment & Decree
Attorney for Petitioners. M. Yaqub Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing : 7th. October 1966. MUHAMMAD YAQUB AL1, J.‑It is contended that before paragraph 46 of the Rahabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme Was amended on the 4th of March 1954, whereby the son of a deceased daughter of a right holder was included in the list of his heirs succession in the case had opened out and the land in dispute had been allotted and confirmed in the name of Muhammad Hassan Khan, father of the petitioners. On this premises it is claimed that Ahmad Ali Khan, respondent, who is son of the predeceased daughter of Sarfraz Khan was not entitled to succeed. The plea raised is without any basis. According to the entries in R. L. II Annexure "A" at page 39 of the printed paper book the land was allotted in the name of Sarfraz Khan and Muhammad Hassan Khan had agreed to the proposal as an heir of the right‑holder. No mutation of inharitance of Sarfraa Khan was ever attested in favour of Muhammad Hagan Khan. On the contrary the Suit filed by the petitioners for a declaration that they were the exclusive heirs of Sarfraz Khan deceased was con tested by the respondent and dismissed by the civil Court. It further appears on the record that mutation No. 202 9n relation to the inheritance of Sarfraz Khan was entered in the revenue papers long after 4th March 1954, and the claim of Ahmad Ali Khan was in accordance with the terms of paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation (Land) Settlement Scheme accepted by the Settlement authorities. The position which emerges out, therefore, is that paragraphs. 46 and 46‑A of the Scheme already stood amended when succession to the estate of Sarfraz Khan the deceased right holder was determined and Ahmad Ali Khan, respondent, being the son of his predeceased daughter bad been given a share in the land verified in his name. In the circumstances no case for interference by the High Court was made out and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected. We dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.