P L D 1964 W (PLP)
LATIF MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ASIA AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LATIF MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ASIA AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (LATIF MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ASIA AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
Gift of evacuee land by allottee‑Revenue Officer has power to sanction mutation in favour of donee. This revision petition relates to a gift executed by Mst. Paras, a permanent allottee of village Qila Tek Singh, District Gujranwala in favour of the grand‑daughter of the donor's husband's brother. The petitioners claim to be the reversioners of the husband of Mst. Paras. The Assistant Collector accepted the factum of gift and decided the mutation accordingly. The peti tioner's appeal was rejected and a revision petition filed with the Additional Commissioner has also been dismissed. A second revision has now been preferred. The main point that has been argued before me is that under the Rehabilitation Settlement Laws (Displaced Persons Lands Settlement Act, 1958) the Revenue Authorities are not competent to attest a mutation relating to succession, alienation or transfer of any other interest in evacuee land. My attention in this connection has been invited to the amendment made in subsection (1) of section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 by the Punjab Land Revenue Amendment Act, 1955 which indicates that allotment of evacuee land under the Rehabili tation Settlement Scheme has to be recorded in the Record of Rights under the law for the time being in force by the Revenue Authorities in the same manner as the acquisition of rights in non‑evacuee land by inheritance, purchase etc. This view has been expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. The Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division and others (P L D 1962 S C 42, 59). In support of this view former Punjab Government's Memorandam Nos. 3705‑R (L), dated 2‑6‑1951 No. 8282‑R(L), dated 25‑10‑1951, No. 2584‑R(L), dated 4‑4‑1952 and No. 6446‑R(L), dated 3‑7‑1952 may also be referred to as mentioned in paragraph No. 67 (3) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. This sub‑para. runs as follows: "The Rehabilitation Authority will not charge any fee for the cases of inheritance for which the form has been prescribed above but subsequent mutations of inheritance will be entered in the regular mutation register as those would involve a change in the entries of the revenue records."' It is correct that a reference is only made to the mutations of inheritance but the logical conclusion would, be that mutations which follow purchase, mortgage, gift etc., are also covered. In my opinion the contention which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners has no legal force and the decision already arrived at is correct. As a result the revision petition stand rejected. K. M. A. Petition rejected.