P L D 1966 W (PLP)
DILAWAR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | DILAWAR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ALI‑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) (DILAWAR AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Ali Alvi for Petitioners.
- Faruq Hassan Naqvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 25 (3) Transaction violating provision of para. 25(3)‑Not valid.
Judgment & Decree
Ghulam Ali Alvi for Petitioners. Faruq Hassan Naqvi for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 18th of September 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that mutation No. 250 was sanctioned in respect of an oral sale of 77 kanals and 7 marlas of land in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the `vendor, Ali respondent, filed an appeal before the Collector, Multan, contending that the mutation was void as it was against the provision of paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No.
64. The Collector accepted the respondent's appeal and declared the transaction as void. The petitioners went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, but ‑ it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. His main contention is that, although the transaction as a whole is void, but upto the extent of leaving a subsistence holding with the respondent, it is valid, I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. The Martial Law Regulation No. 64 only provides that, when a transaction violates the provision of para. 25 (3), it will not be allowed. There is no mention about the extent to which it can be held valid even if the whole is void. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M, A. Revision dismissed.