P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MIRAJ DIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioner Versus JOWAYA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MIRAJ DIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioner Versus JOWAYA‑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, Chief Land Commissioner, 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) (MIRAJ DIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioner Versus JOWAYA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Latif for Petitioners.
- Ataullah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 25(6) Ejectment of tenant‑Tenant not liable to pay rent to original occupancy tenants nor to their successors‑iv‑interest-Not also liable to pay rent to successors‑in‑interest of transferors‑Held, such tenant cannot be ejected by purchaser of land in dispute.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 25(6) Ejectment of tenant‑Tenant not liable to pay rent to original occupancy tenants nor to their successors‑iv‑interest-Not also liable to pay rent to successors‑in‑interest of transferors‑Held, such tenant cannot be ejected by purchaser of land in dispute. Muhammad Latif for Petitioners. Ataullah for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 12th of April 1963, passed by Land Commissioner, Lahore, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the respondent. The facts of the case are that the petitioners moved for the ejectment of the respondent from the land in dispute under para. 25 (6) of Martial Law Regulation No.
64. The Deputy Land Commissioner granted their request. Thereupon, the respondent went in appeal to the Land Commissioner who accepted the appeal. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The respondent is a tenant under the original occupancy tenants from whom the petitioners have purchased the land in dispute. The respondent according to the existing entries was not liable to pay any rent to the original occupancy tenants. He is, therefore, not a person who is liable to pay any rent to their successors‑in‑interest. Hence he cannot be ejected. The learned Land Commissioner was, there fore, perfectly justified in accepting the appeal of the 'respondent. In these circumstances no interference is called for. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Revision dismissed.