P L D 1966 W (PLP)
Makhdum Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Makhdum Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑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) (Makhdum Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Petitioner.
- Shaminr Hussain Qadri and Sh. Ataullah for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, paras. 15 & 16‑Exchange of parcels of resumed land with scattered areas retained not proved to be for purposes of consolidation‑Not allowed.
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑
(1) Makhdum Syed Nazar Hussain Shah v. State (Revision No. 1199 of 1962). (2) Makhdum Syed Nazar Hussain Shah v. State (Revision No. 1200 of 1962). These two revisions have been filed against two orders, dated the 26th of July 1962 and 31st of July 1962, passed by the Land Commissioner, Multan, whereby he refused to allow the petitioner to exercise a fresh choice.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the exchange of 261 acres of resumed land with the area which had been retained by his son. The request was rejected by the Deputy Land Commissioner on the ground that if acceded to, it would cause dislocation of the tenants already settled, The petitioner went in appeal to the Land Commissioner, Multan, but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first ground for exchange was that a fresh choice might be allowed as the request of the petitioner for livestock farm had been rejected. This area did not form part of the livestock area and, therefore, the application cannot be entertained on this ground. The next point urged before me was that the exchange is needed for purposes of consolidation. An examination showed that the petitioner was not getting land in a compact block but was trying to get area in three scattered blocks which were under his self‑cultivation but had been resumed. Moreover, the exchange was requested against an area of petitioner's son, Muhammad Javaid Hussain Shah. The exchange was not between the land retained by the father or the son and which was sought to be brought together. It was just a question of getting specified killa numbers and leaving some area from the land which was already in a compact block. In these circumstances, no interference is called for. Both the revisions fail and are dismissed hereby. S. Q. Revision dismissed.