1970 PLP 81 (SCMR)
FAIZU-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KACHHI AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 81 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | West Pakistan Land -Reforms Regulation Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (C. M. L. A's), para. 21.-Memorandum dated 27-4-66 by Deputy Land Commissioner and Memorandum dated 25-6-66 by Commissioner-Abolition of jagirdari Effect of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on tenancies of cultivators of .such land-Legality of order of Deputy Land Commissioner canceling his previous Memorandum dated 27-4-66-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider questions. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAIZU-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KACHHI AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 81 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 81 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the West Pakistan Land -Reforms Regulation Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (C. M. L. A's), para. 21.-Memorandum dated 27-4-66 by Deputy Land Commissioner and Memorandum dated 25-6-66 by Commissioner-Abolition of jagirdari Effect of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on tenancies of cultivators of .such land-Legality of order of Deputy Land Commissioner canceling his previous Memorandum dated 27-4-66-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider questions. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 81 (SCMR) (FAIZU-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KACHHI AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. A. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Karamat Ali, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 9th October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 26th July 1967, in Writ Petitions Nos. 285, 286, 298, 299, 300 and 472 of 1967). West Pakistan Land -Reforms Regulation [Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (C. M. L. A's)], para. 21.-Memorandum dated 27-4-66 by Deputy Land Commissioner and Memorandum dated 25-6-66 by Commissioner-Abolition of jagirdari Effect of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on tenancies of cultivators of .such land-Legality of order of Deputy Land Commissioner canceling his previous Memorandum dated 27-4-66-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider questions.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 358 to 363 of 1967. The dispute in these cases is between the Jagirdars and tenants over the question of batai in respect of lands of certain villages in Sub‑Tehsil Chattar, District Karachi. In the past the petitioners used to pay batai to the Jagirdars. After abolition of jagirdari by Martial Law Regulation No. 64 with effect from 7th February 1959, the Deputy Land Commissioner by his Memorandum dated the 27th April 1966, issued instructions to all Nazims and Tehsildars in the said District that the rent receiving interests of the Jagirdars had been terminated from the aforesaid date and that if they had realized any batai after that date, they should be asked to return the same. After issue of the above Memorandum the tenants stopped payment of batai to Jagirdars and this led to various proceedings between the parties. The Commissioner then by his memorandum dated 25th June 1966, informed the Deputy Land Commissioner that the Met no issued by him on 27‑4‑66 had no legal foundation and should be withdrawn. Thereafter, the Deputy Land Commissioner issued fresh instructions to Nazims arid 'Tehsildars directing them not to act under the earlier instructions "ac tenants then filed separate writ petitions challenging legality of the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner raving his Memorandum dated 27‑4‑
66. As the points raised were identical in all the petitions the High Court heard them together and by a consolidated judgment dismissed the he in lemine. They now seek special leave to appeal to this Court. The questions raised in these cases are; (i) as to the nature of title and interests of the petitioners in the lands held by them ; (ii) the effect of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on the said tenancies, and (iii) the legality of the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner canceling his previous Memorandum. As the points raised are not free from difficulty the petitioners should be given a right to prefer a‑first appeal against the order of the High Court. We accordingly grant leave to appeal each of these cases. Security Rs. 1,000 in each petition. Prayer for stay is refused. Leave granted: