P L D 1966 W (PLP)
AMIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. IMTIAZ BEGUM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | AMIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. IMTIAZ BEGUM‑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, 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 1966 W (PLP) (AMIR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. IMTIAZ BEGUM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Review ‑Revenue Officer sanctioning mutation, or his successor, can move for review‑Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 15. (b) Mutation‑Oral gift‑Donor can be identified before Revenue Officer by any person not necessarily Lambardar‑Mere facts that mutation was sanctioned at place other than village where land is situate and that only one mutation was sanctioned‑Cannot invalidate mutation.
Judgment & Decree
In this case, however, I find that the original mutation was reviewed illegally. As the law stands, it is only the Revenue Officer who sanctioned the mutation, or his successor; who can move for review. It was this legal position which rightly influenced the learned Additional Commissioner in accepting the revision preferred by the respondent. As regards the objections raised by the learned counsel. It is usual that the identification is done by the Lambardar, but there is no provision in which identification by a person other than the Lambardar can be held to be defective. The distance of the place at which the mutation was actually sanctioned is not relevant either. The Revenue Officer can do so while on tour even away from the place at which the land in dispute is situated. The only point on which a Revenue Officer should be satisfied is that the person at whose instance the mutation is entered is actually present. The fact that this was the only mutation sanctioned on that date cannot invalidate it because if there was no other mutation to be sanctioned, the Revenue Officer would be perfectly entitled to sanction this solitary mutation, which was put up to him. It is true that the sale was oral but the mutation was sanctioned at the instance of the donor. The gift was made in favour of the wife and the question of transfer of possession is, therefore, immaterial. It is true that there is disparity between the agreement and the report of the Patwari in respect of the Rectangle number, but this report was recorded by the Patwari at the instance of donor himself. The main point in this case is whether the petitioner, in his capacity as donor, has made a statement before the Patwari or not. Nowhere did the Patwari or the Revenue Officer state that the donor was a person different from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following rulings:‑
(1) P L D of 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 29. (2) P L D of 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 60. (3) P L D of 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 61 and (4) P L D of 1963 W. P: (Rev.)
8. I am afraid none of the first three rulings is on all fours with the present case. In the case of P L D 1963, the Patwari and the Revenue Officer made definite statements about the presentation of another person produced before them as against the actual man. In the circumstances, I see no justification for any interference with the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. The second revision petition fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.