P L D (Rev (PLP)
GUL BAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SABHAI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | GUL BAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SABHAI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Mutation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (GUL BAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SABHAI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑Sale transaction by woman limited owner of land ‑Mutation may not be refused. Mutation of a transaction of sale of land entered into by a woman limited owner and effected by a registered deed, was refused by the Assistant Collector and the order was upheld by the Collector. Held, that there is a clear distinction between void and voidable transactions and it is only transactions which are ab initio void which have not to be given effect to in the revenue records. Mutation therefore was wrongly refused. Muhammad Bakhsh v. Maula Dad P L D (Rev.) 1954 Punjab 21 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR AHMAD. F. C.‑This case has been referred by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division with a recommendation that the order passed by the Assistant 'Collector, in mutation No. 5010 of village Sultan Khel Gharbi, district Mianwali and upheld by the Collector be set aside. The facts are that Mst. Sabhai who is a limited owner of the land in dispute sold it by means of a registered deed in favour of Gulbaz Khan. When the mutation incorporating the sale came up before the Assistant Collector he rejected it on. the ground that Mst. Sabhai being a .limited owner was not competent to effect the sale. As already observed the Collector has maintained this order in appeal. The law on this point has been laid down in R.O.R. No. 129 of 1952‑53 Buta etc. v. Gulab etc of Jhelum district which followed the previous ruling of my learned predecessor Akhtar Hussain, F. C. in Muhammad Bakhsh v. Mauta, Dad (P L D (Rev.) 1954 Ph. 21) There is a clear distinction between void‑ and voidable transactions and it has been held by Financial Commissioners in numerous rulings that it is only transactions which are ab initio void which have not to be given effect in the revenue records. I would, therefore, accept the recommendation of the Commissioner, set aside the order passed by Assistant Collector and direct that the mutation be sanctioned in favour of Gulbaz Khan. The reversioners of Mst. Sabhai can seek their remedy in a competent Civil Court. A. H. Petition accepted.