P L D 1965 W (PLP)
FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAQ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAQ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Mutation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 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 1965 W (PLP) (FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAQ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Hasan Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Challenged by vendor six months after date of mutation in appeal before Collector saying that he never appeared before Revenue Officer or received consideration and that place where mutation had been sanctioned was 15 miles from his village and mutation was not sanctioned before "a gathering"‑Plus rejected on facts‑Petition for Revision dismissed as parties were rejected by a member of neighbouring (7 miles) Union Council and vendor's state ment before Patwari was not challenged by him. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Nasim Hasan Shah for Petitioner. Respondent in person. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 29th of February 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that Fateh Muhammad petitioner got a mutation of an oral sale entered by the Patwari. This mutation was sanctioned on 29‑9‑1962, by the Revenue Officer in the presence of the parties who were identified by Abdul Ghafoor a Member of the Union Council of a neighbouring Council, Kaloke. The transaction as well as the change of posses sion was admitted by the parties. Subsequently after the lapse of about 6 months, the petitioner went tit appeal to the Collector and alleged that he never received any consideration nor appeared before the Revenue Officer. The appeal was however, rejected by the Collector. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, but it was also dismissed. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has alleged that the mutation was sanctioned at a village about 15 miles from Maddar. In this connection he drew my attention to a certificate produced by him whereby the distance between Maddar and Khairan via Sheikhupura is 15 miles. No indication has been given as to the direct distance between the, two villages. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the identifying person Abdul Ghafoor was a Member of a Union Council, not of the village where the land was situated but of Kaluke. It is however, conceded that distance between Kaluke and Maddar is about 7 miles. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued before me that enquiries were not made in a general gathering if am afraid I cannot accept this contention. The mutation was sanctioned at a village not far from the land in dispute and there was a general gathering. Moreover the parties appeared before the Revenue Officer and were duly identified by Abdul Ghafoor" who was a Member of the Union Council of village not fat from Maddar. It is also established that. Fateh Muhammad made statement before the Patwari and it has not been alleged that any person other than Fateh Muhammad petitioner made a report to the Patwari: In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed: