P L D 1959 W (PLP)
DULLAH and another‑Petitioners Versus SHAHAB DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | DULLAH and another‑Petitioners Versus SHAHAB DIN‑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) (DULLAH and another‑Petitioners Versus SHAHAB DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fazal Elahi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19‑Sale of share in tenancy‑Ineffective where there is neither a sale‑deed nor a mutation‑Mere statement of vendor admitting sale before Naib Tehsildar does not amount to transfer of property.
Judgment & Decree
Fazal Elahi for Petitioners. The father of the petitioners was holding a tenancy jointly with the respondent in squares Nos. 6 and
7. He bought the share of the respondent and afterwards, when the permission of the Commissioner or other authorised officer under section 19 of the Colonization Act arrived, the respondent went back on the sale and did not agree to get the mutation sanctioned in favour of the father of the petitioners. A sale has to be effected by means of a deed of transfer or by getting a mutation sanctioned. The respondent neither entered into a deed of sale nor got any mutation sanctioned. He had made a statement before the Naib Tahsildar to the effect A that he had sold the land to the father of the petitioners and that he sought, the permission of the competent authority under section
19. I am satisfied that this proceeding by itself does not amount to a transfer of property. When the transfer is not proved, the Colony authorities are justified in refusing to accept the present petitioners as the only tenants in the tenancy in question to the exclusion of the respon dent. If the petitioners feel that the sale is effective and binding on the respondent, they can have recourse to competent Civil Court for the purpose. In the above circumstances, there is no question of altering the decision of the Financial Commissioner of the former Bahawalpur State dated 7‑11‑
54. The petition for review is accordingly dismissed without issuing notice to the other party. A. H. Petition dismissed.