P L D 1966 W (PLP)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑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, 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 1966 W (PLP) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Asad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑Sanctioned in presence of opposite‑party‑Appeal before Collector time‑barred‑Mutation not to be upset on mere allegation of opposite party that he was not present before Assistant Collector. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent in person. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 4th of July 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who, while exercising the power of the Commissioner, accepted the revision preferred by the respondent. The facts of the case are that, on the basis of resolution No. 57 passed by the Anjuman‑e‑Ishtam, mutation No. 1706 was entered and sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade in favour of the petitioner. The respondent went in appeal to the Collector but it was rejected. The respondent went in revision to the Additional Commissioner who passed the order mentioned above. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. The learned Additional Commissioner appears to have been influenced by the consideration that resolution No. 57 contained over‑writings. It was, however, ignored that the mutation was sanctioned in the presence of the respondent who subsequently denied his appearance before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. Even before me, it has been stated that the respondent was not present at the time the mutation was sanctioned. I see no reason why the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade should make a false entry about the presence of the respondent if he was not really there. So far as the change of possession is concerned, it is not relevant because the petitioner does not allege to have got possession of the land in dispute. Another factor which was ignored by the learned Additional Commissioner was that the appeal before the Collector was time‑barred. In these circumstances, it is a fit case for interference on the second revisional stage. I, therefore, accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and subsequently confirmed by the learned Collector shall stand and shall be implemented. K. M. A. Revision accepted.