P L D 1963 W (PLP)
FIRDOS KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SARFARAZ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1963 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | FIRDOS KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SARFARAZ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M. L. R. No. 64) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M. L. R. No. 64) 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 bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
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) (FIRDOS KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SARFARAZ KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahfooz Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Afzal for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
para. 7 Partition proceedings completed on 18‑11‑1958 and instrument of partition prepared Mutation proceeding pending‑Regulation, which came into force on 7‑2‑1959, does not affect partition.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. 287 of 1961‑62, decided on 29th August 1962, District Peshawar.
para. 7 Partition proceedings completed on 18‑11‑1958 and instrument of partition prepared Mutation proceeding pending‑Regulation, which came into force on 7‑2‑1959, does not affect partition. Mahfooz Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Afzal for Respondents. In my opinion this revision petition has no force and should be dismissed. The partition proceedings in dispute had been completed on 18‑11‑1958, as on that day the file was consigned to the Record Room after the preparation of the instrument of partition. Martial Law Regulation No. 64 came into operation on 7‑2‑1959 and does not, therefore, affect an accomplished fact. The mere fact that the mutation in respect of the partition is pending does not mean that the partition proceedings have not been finally concluded. The mutation only incorporates in the revenue records a fact which has already been completed and has no other significance ; it cannot therefore form the basis of the contention that partition proceedings are still in conclusive in character. The revision petition for these reasons stands dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.