Exchange mutation
Exchange mutation legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Petitioner contended that transfer of property in exchange mutation made by him was bad in law as it violated prevalent law (Martial Law Regulations)
Patwari had wrongly mentioned his total ownership in exchange mutation in order to report that exchange mutation was not in violation of said law
Held, that no one could take benefit of his own wrong
If report was wrongly made by Patwari, petitioner was party to those proceedings and in his benefit exchange mutation was entered and sanctioned
Presumption would be that petitioner could not absolve himself from endorsement and could not take benefit of his own wrong even if reports in which ownership of petitioner was wrongly mentioned in order to get exchange mutation sanctioned
Constitutional petition was dismissed, accordingly.
"Exchange mutation", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124959842
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Exchange mutation"
2017 C L C Note 32
Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)1988 C L C 142
GUL AHMAD KHAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MOHAMMAD NAWAZ and others‑‑Respondents
Court: Peshawar1990 S C M R 1642
ILAM DIN and others‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑S.118‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 M.L.R. 64, para.25‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Exchange of land‑‑‑Parties took possession of exchanged land and mutations were entered‑‑‑Subsequently one of the mutations was found to be hit by West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959 and cancelled‑‑‑Other mutation was also cancelled as the same was also held to be hit by the provision of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959‑‑ Cancellation of exchange mutation was challenged by respondent in appeal and order of cancellation was recalled in respect of exchange mutation which had been sanctioned in his favour‑‑‑Such order was upheld upto the Board of Revenue‑‑‑High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction remanded the case to Board of Revenue for deciding the same afresh‑‑‑Board of Revenue again dismissed Revision so also High Court dismissed Constitutional petition‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑ Grievance of petitioners was that in not giving effect to observations of High Court which had assumed finality, Board of Revenue fell into an error in not placing both the parties on the same footing‑‑‑When exchange mutations were found to be invalid being in violation of M.L.R. 64 proper course for Board of Revenue would have been to wipe them off and restore the parties to their original position; wiping off the mutation of cancellation of exchange on the appeal of respondent was uncalled for, because by cancellation of such mutation respondent had virtually become the owner of land at both places; and inconsistent orders passed by Revenue Authorities had led to the deprivation of land owned by petitioners in an illegal manner ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider these points.2017 Y L R 1160
Qazi SALAH UD DIN through L.Rs. and others — Petitioners Versus ROMAN and 4 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar1990 C L C 1679
MU14AMMAD MADASSAR SHAH ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUBARIK SHAH and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: PeshawarP L D 2009 Supreme Court 751
MUHAMMAD HANEEF — Petitioner Versus ABDUL SAMAD and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2015 Y L R 539
Mst. SAMINA BIBI and 9 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar1983 C L C 1227
GUL BADSHAH‑Petitioner Versus SHEIBAZ KHAN ‑ Respondent
Court: Peshawar2008 Y L R 135
SULTAN AHMAD through General Attorney — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore2008 Y L R 135
SULTAN AHMAD through General Attorney — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore