P L D (PLP)
MUSHARAF ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ANWAR ALI AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Mutation‑ Declaratory decree awarding share of land --Mutation sanctioned‑Decrees touching title to be incorporated in Revenue Records‑Opponents' plea of adverse possession imma terial for purpose of mutation‑P L D 1350 Ph. (Rev.) 432 and P L. D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 460 rel. |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUSHARAF ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ANWAR ALI AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Mutation‑ Declaratory decree awarding share of land --Mutation sanctioned‑Decrees touching title to be incorporated in Revenue Records‑Opponents' plea of adverse possession imma terial for purpose of mutation‑P L D 1350 Ph. (Rev.) 432 and P L. D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 460 rel. bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad 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 (PLP) (MUSHARAF ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ANWAR ALI AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑ Declaratory decree awarding share of land --Mutation sanctioned‑Decrees touching title to be incorporated in Revenue Records‑Opponents' plea of adverse possession imma terial for purpose of mutation‑[P L D 1350 Ph. (Rev.) 432 and P L. D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 460 rel.]
Judgment & Decree
3. Two main points have been urged by the learned counsel for petitioners :‑ (1) The Assistant Collector passed the order on mutation No. 16 without summoning or hearing the petitioners; and (2) The decree on the basis of which the mutation had been attested was incapable of execution and was therefore inopera tive as it was merely a declaratory in character, (no consequen tial relief in the form of possession having been prayed for) and the respondents will have to bring a suit for possession which, again, was time‑barred due to the petitioners' adverse possession of more than twelve years which had passed since litigation started.
4. As regards the first argument a reference to the order of the Assistant Collector dated 31‑3‑57 on mutation No. 16 shows that the petitioners had refused service of the notice and had failed to appear before him in spite of a proclamation having been made in the village.
5. Regarding the second contention, obviously the declara tory decree determined the title of parties to the land and entries in the revenue records have to be amended in accordance with section 37 of the Land Revenue Act. It has been consistently held by the Financial Commissioners that there is an obligation laid on the Revenue Officers to incorporate, in revenue records, the judgment or decree of a Civil Court touching title of the parties. [P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 432 and P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 460.] The petitioners may raise the plea of their adverse possession if and when the respondents apply for partition of the land or otherwise ask for its possession. This plea does not debar a Revenue Officer from correcting the revenue records.
6. Since the order of the High Court has been properly incorporated in the revenue records and there is no illegality or irregularity I decline to interfere In revision, which stands rejected. A. H. Petition rejected.