P L D 1966 W (PLP)
(2) MUSTAFA HUSSAIN‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent.
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | (2) MUSTAFA HUSSAIN‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) ((2) MUSTAFA HUSSAIN‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pirzada Abdus Sattar for Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms, Regulation, 1959, para. 7 -Gift made in 1950‑Permission required under S. 8, Sind Act III of 1899 not accorded yet‑Held : transaction of gift not completed till sanction under Sind Act accorded and no fresh rights or interests can be created after 7th February 1959 Validation of gift refused.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms, Regulation, 1959, para. 7 -Gift made in 1950‑Permission required under S. 8, Sind Act III of 1899 not accorded yet‑Held : transaction of gift not completed till sanction under Sind Act accorded and no fresh rights or interests can be created after 7th February 1959 Validation of gift refused. Pirzada Abdus Sattar for Appellants. This is an appeal filed against an order, dated the 15th of July 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he refused to validate a gift of 243 acres and 24 ghuntas of Bandishi land alleged to have been made by one Mitha Khan alias Sadik Ali Khan in favour of the appellant. The facts of the case are that the above‑mentioned gift was alleged to have been made in 1950. It was in respect of land under restricted tenure. The appellant is alleged to have made an application for necessary permission under section 8 of Sind Act III of 1899. No decision was taken on the first application and they made another application after the Sanghar district had been constituted but that application is alleged to have been pending. After the imposition of the Martial Law, the appellant moved for the validation of the gifts mentioned above. They relied on a statement said to have been made before the Mukhtiarkar on the 31st August 1954. The Land Commissioner refused validation. Hence this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. In the first instance, he has raised objection as regards the jurisdiction of the Land Commissioner. There is no question of any wrong jurisdiction having been exercised. It was the appellants themselves who moved for validation. The proper procedure was followed and the Land Commissioner then passed orders. On merits, I find that the land involved was under restricted tenure. It could not be gifted to the appellants without the sanction of the Collector under section 8 of Sind Act III of 1899. This sanction has 'not been given so far and, therefore, the transaction is not yet complete. After the 7th of February 1959, no fresh rights or interests can be created. In these circumstances, no interference is called for. The appeal fails and is rejected hereby. S. Q, Appeal rejected.