P L D 1959 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, 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 1959 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Land Alienation Act (XIII of 1900) Legal practitioner cannot appear in proceeding under Act. (b) Punjab Land Alienation Act (XIII of 1900), S. 3‑Permis sion to sell land given by Deputy Commissioner‑Valid‑No inter‑ference.
Judgment & Decree
Legal practitioner cannot appear in proceeding under Act. (b) Punjab Land Alienation Act (XIII of 1900), S. 3‑Permis sion to sell land given by Deputy Commissioner‑Valid‑No inter‑ference. The respondent wanted to be represented by a legal practi tioner but the petitioner objected on the ground that this was) proceeding under the Alienation of Land Act. This objection was A upheld and the legal practitioner, therefore, withdrew from the Court. The petitioner wants me to cancel the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on 14‑1‑55 permitting under the said Act the present respondent to buy some land from Rahim Bux Shah in accordance with mutation No. 351 of Bhutta Kot. The mutation had been entered on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 16‑6‑
53. The petitioner states that the respondent was already an owner of land in Kundewali estate. For this purpose, he has referred me to a copy of the Jamabandi of that estate showing that the respondent was an owner in Khewat No.
17. The respondent has, however, shown that ownership of this was recorded on the basis of mutation No. 492 of oral sale, which document showed that he had purchased that land on 15‑8‑
53. The respondent quite clearly states that he did not own any land in the Bahawalpur State or the Rahimyar Khan district before 16‑6‑
53. The date on which the land in dispute was sold to him by Rahim Bux Shah. In the above circumstances, it cannot be asserted reasonably that the Deputy Commissioner's permission for the sale of land by Rahim Bux Shah in favour of the respondent was not needed, or that the Deputy Commissioner's permission was manoeuvred for purposes of escaping the effect of a suit for pre‑emption which might be lodged by the present petitioner.
2. In these circumstances, I do not see any justification for cancelling the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14‑1‑
55. The result is that I dismiss this petition for revision. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.