2017 PLP 1064 (YLR)
AZIZ AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MOHAMMAD IRSHAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1064 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Islamabad |
| Bench Members | Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J |
| Parties | AZIZ AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MOHAMMAD IRSHAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Words and phrases, (a) Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1064 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Words and phrases, (a) Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1064 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad bench comprising: Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1064 (YLR) (AZIZ AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MOHAMMAD IRSHAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana M. Irshad Khan for Petitioners.
- Jam Khursheed Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 to 9.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 172, 161, 53 & 52
Correction of entries in revenue record
Scope
Plaintiff filed suit for correction of entries in revenue record
Trial Court dismissed the suit but Appellate Court decreed the same
Revenue authorities could only pass order for correction of revenue record
Section 172 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 did not exclude jurisdiction of Civil Court from exercising the jurisdiction for settlement of rights of the parties which had been effected or when rights had not been settled completely or in those cases where right in rem and personam had to be determined
When any long standing entry had effected the rights of individual, same could only be rectified on the basis of decree of Civil Court
When any entry in the periodical record of rights had successively been made, same had presumption of correctness
Long standing entries could only be rectified on the basis of decree of Civil Court at the first instance
Defendants were beneficiary of correction made by the Collector and subsequent mutation thereof
Order passed by the Collector for correction of entries in the record of rights was illegal
Necessary parties had neither been impleaded in the correction proceedings before the Collector nor rights of individuals had been settled who had purchased the land in question
Even Collector had not issued any notice to the effectees of correction and entire proceedings were contrary to legal practice
Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court did not suffer from mis-reading or non-reading of evidence
High Court observed that decision of High Court would not debar the defendants from agitating the matter before competent Court after impleading all concerned parties, effectees, subsequent vendees and transferees in the proceeding under the law
Revision was dismissed. Ikram Ullah v. Zakir Ullah 2010 YLR 2687; Niamat Ali v. Malik Habibullah 2004 SCMR 604; Abdul Hamid v. Sikandar Ali and others 2005 YLR 890 and Rasta Mal Khan v. Nabi Sawar Khan 1996 SCMR 78 rel.
Meaning. M. D. Tahir Adv. v. Chief Election Commissioner PLD 1977 Lah. 926 rel.