P L D 1966 W (PLP)
DOST MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
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) (DOST MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Iqbal Hussain for Petitioners.
- Shaikh Muhammad Rafiq for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
(2) Dost Muhammad v. Muhammad Saddiq (Revision No. 240). (3) Dost Muhammad v. Muhammad Bashir (Revision No. 241). (4) Dost Muhammad v. Muhammad Saddiq (Revision No.242). (5) Nazir v. Muhammad Saddiq (Revision No. 243). (6) Nazir v. Muhammad Rashid (Revision No. 244). These six revisions have been filed against orders dated the 22nd of October 1965, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revision), Sargodha whereby the six appeals preferred by the petitioners were rejected. The facts of the case are that the respondents got the land in dispute as allottees. The petitioners did not pay any rent to the allottees and, therefore, the respondents moved for the ejectment of tenants on the ground that they had not paid the arrears of rent. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, rejected the request. The respondents went in appeal to the Collector who accepted it and ordered the ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, but the appeals were dismissed. Hence these revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has contended that according to the Wajlbul Arz, the petitioners, cannot be ejected. The position, however, is quite clear from the revenue records. The petitioners are tenants under the allottees, but they do not consider themselves as tenants under the respondents and therefore, not liable to pay any rent to the respondents. Moreover, it is established on record that they did not pay any rent to the respondents. They were, therefore, clearly liable to ejectment for non‑payment of rent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that they are sub‑tenants of one Ikhtiar for the relevant harvest. Ikhtiar is not supposed to be shown to be a tenant or a sub‑tenant. If the petitioners claimed any right in. the land in dispute, they could take such steps as the law permitted but after the land had been declared evacuee and allotted to the respondents, they are liable to pay rent to the respondents. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interfence. All the six revisions fail and are dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revisions dismissed.