P L D 1964 W (PLP)
Mst. REHMAT BIBI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus NEMAT KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. REHMAT BIBI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus NEMAT KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 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 1964 W (PLP) (Mst. REHMAT BIBI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus NEMAT KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Salim Chaudhry for Petitioners.
- Ch. Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Evacuee land‑Questions of succession or alienation arising before confirmation of allotment‑To be determined by Rehabilitation Authorities alone‑Revenue Officers have no jurisdiction to decide mutation in respect of unsettled claim --West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, Para. 46.
Judgment & Decree
1/2 (2) Ghous Bibi, daughter 1/4 (3) Rehmat Bibi widow of Amanat Khan, a pre‑deceased son 1/20 (4) Bashiran daughter of Amanat Khan, the pre‑deceased son 1/5 The Collector maintained this order in appeal. In revision, however, the learned Commissioner, Sargodha, interfered, set aside the orders passed by the officers below and directed that as the deceased died in Pakistan after filing his claim form, para. 46 of the Settlement Scheme will not apply to his case and succession will be decided by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act. A second revision has now been filed. The main point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that since the claimant, Ghumanday Khan, had died before securing actual allotment against his verified claim, succession will be governed by paragraph 46 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and the normal rule of succession laid down by the Shariat Law will not be applicable m this case. There is, however, another important question to be decided; namely, whether the Revenue Officers had jurisdiction to deal with the mutation in respect of an unsettled claim. The rulings on this point and the stand taken by the Rehabilitation Authorities themselves are to the effect that cases of succession alienation etc. in respect of a claim or an allotment before confir mation have to be dealt with by the Rehabilitation Authorities. The Revenue Authorities come in when the allotment has bee confirmed and not earlier. Before confirmation of land take place it is a question of succession or alienation in respect of claim only and under the Settlement laws the matter is for deter mination by the Rehabilitation Authorities alone. The admitted facts of this case clearly show that the Revenue Officers except the Assistant Collectors had no jurisdiction in the matter and the appeal to the Collector and the revision to the Additional Commissioner were not competent as neither of them had jurisdiction to deal with the case. All Assistant Collectors, however, are ex‑officio Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioners and the Assistant Collector therefore decided the matter. The parties for the above names are instructed to take up the case with the competent Rehabilitation Authorities The orders passed by the Collector and the learned Commissioner are vacated. The parties should be informed. S. Q. Revision accepted.