P (PLP)
Mst. BHAKHAN‑Petitioner Versus MANAK‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Akhter Husain, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | Mst. BHAKHAN‑Petitioner Versus MANAK‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Akhter Husain, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (Mst. BHAKHAN‑Petitioner Versus MANAK‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad, for Petitioner.
- Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq Khan, for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lards (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 20‑Horse‑breeding grant‑Customary Law has no application. Land in dispute being a grant held on horse breeding conditions, the question of application of the Customary law to the case does not arise.
Judgment & Decree
Land in dispute being a grant held on horse breeding conditions, the question of application of the Customary law to the case does not arise. Bashir Ahmad, for Petitioner. Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq Khan, for Respondent. ORDER‑This is a petition for revision under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, from the order of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, dated 14th October 1946, by which he rejected the appeal of the petitioner and accepted the appeal of Manak and ordered that the whole of the share of 6 killas of Mst. Bhakhan should be mutated in favour of Manak. The facts briefly are that one Ali died leaving one son (Manak respondent), widow Mst. Nooran and widow of his predeceased son (Mst. Bhakhan). On the death of Ali the land in dispute which was then held on horse‑breeding conditions was mutated in favour of Manak but twelve killas of land were reserved for the maintenance of two widows, namely, Mst. Nooran and Mst. Bhakhan in equal shares. On the death of Mst. Nooran the Revenue Officer mutated her share in favour of Mst. Bhakhan till death or remarriage. On appeal the Collector considered that in view of abrogation of horse‑breeding conditions the succession to the land left by the deceased widow was governed by section 21 (b) of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act. Holding that under paragraph 6 (page 14) of the Customary Law of the District, son and widow of a predeceased son shared alike in succession, the Collector directed that the land left by the deceased widow, Mst. Nooran, be mutated in equal shares in the names of Manak and Mst. Bhakhah. The parties appealed to the Commissioner against the order of the Collector and the learned Commissioner rejected the appeal of 161st. Bhakhan and accepted that of Manak to the extent that he was declared entitled to get possession of the 6 killas originally mutated in favour of Mst. Nooran. Against the order of the Commissioner the present revision application has been filed. It appears that on the death of Mst. Nooran, Manak was clearly entitled to the land in dispute as the original mutation in the names of the two widows was only in the nature of a maintenance allowance and the title to the ownership of the land remained that of Manak. That being the position the subordinate officers were not very relevant in treating this case as one of succession. The land in dispute being a grant held on horse‑breeding conditions; the question of application of the Customary Law to the case did not arise. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and reject the revision petition. Announced. K. M. A. Revision rejected.