L D 1959 (W (PLP)
ABDUL GHANI and others‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI and others‑Respondents
| Citation | L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI and others‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI and others‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in L D 1959 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case L D 1959 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. 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: L D 1959 (W (PLP) (ABDUL GHANI and others‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI and others‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Alienation of Land Act (XIII of 1900), S. 3 (2) Vendees entered as agriculturists in khasra girdawari‑Treated as agriculturists‑Permission to sale given gratuitously by Deputy Commissioner cancelled by Commissioner‑Effect on pre‑emption suit‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913), S.
9. Respondents Nos. 1, 3 & 4 in person. Respondent No. 2 is absent despite service.
Judgment & Decree
Respondents Nos. 1, 3 & 4 in person. Respondent No. 2 is absent despite service. Mst. Khurshid Begum sold certain land in village Sanjar Khan, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, to the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 and 5, by registered deed dated 12‑9‑
57. Mutation No. 340 was entered. The Assistant Collector, 2nd. Grade, was of the view that the vendees were not agriculturists and that permission of the D. C. was necessary under section 3 (2) of the Alienation of Lands Act. This per mission was given by D. C's. order dated 4‑4‑56 and the mutation in question was attested on 28‑4‑
56. A petition against this order was filed before the Commissioner who held that since both the parties to the transaction were agriculturists, the sanction of the D. C. under section 3 (2) of the Alienation of Lands Act was not necessary. He, therefore, set aside the sanctioning order of ‑the D. C., but not the order attesting Mutation No. 340, which according to the Commissioner could be attested without the sanction of the D. C. The petitioners have come in revision on the ground that Ahmed Ali has filed a pre‑emption suit which would not lie if sanction had been validly given by the D. C. under section 3 (2) of the Punjab Alienation of Lands Act. The Commissioner has mentioned Khasra Girdawaris on which he relied and which showed that the parties are agri culturists. The petitioners contend that the Khasra Girdawari entries were wrong and were surreptitiously obtained. There is no material on the record to support this contention. In Mutation No. 340 of the village in question and of 232 dated 27‑7‑56 of Kot Mithi, the residence of some or all of the petitioners is shown in Sadiqabad. That further supports the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner. In view of what is stated above, I do not find adequate grounds for interference in revision. The result is that the petition is rejected in limine. A. H. Petition rejected.