Vesting of Property
Vesting of Property legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
S. 30 read with Permanent Transfer Rules, 1961, r. 4 and Transfer of Property Act (VII of 1882), S. 8-Vesting of property-Transferee without giving notice under S. 30 dying and property devolving on his heirs, or transferee alienating property and divesting himself of all his rights and interests in property-Legal representatives in first case or vendees in second case step into shoes of transferees and vested with all rights and privileges conferred by law on transferee-Transferee entitled to transfer or alienate such property in accordance with normal law and alienee acquiring all rights and interest of transferor such rights ipso facto include right to seek eviction of tenant in accordance with S. 30 in same manner as original transferee.
"Vesting of Property", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15036
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Vesting of Property"
1981 C L C 769
FAUJDAR AND 16 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus BATA SHOE Co. LTD., LAHORE‑Respondent
Court: Lahore2006 S C M R 771
SHAH JEHAN KHAN ABBASI — Petitioner Versus DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1984 C L C 2022
Seth KESHOMAL AND ANOTHER‑‑ — Petitioners Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS — ‑Respondents
Court: Karachi1997 P T D 1062
ADAIR DUTT & CO. INDIA (PVT.) LTD. Versus APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
Court: 222 I T R 4382006 S C M R 718
MUHAMMAD LUQMAN — Petitioner Versus ALLAH DIWAYA and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1997 C L C 1524
KARIM BAKHSH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION
Court: LahoreP L D 1985 Lahore 347
MAHMOODA BEGUM-Petitioner Versus CUXIMISSIONER, LAHORE AND others-Respondents
Court: Art. 98-West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958) as amended by (Amendment) Ordinance (XXVIII of 1963), Ss. 3 & 4-Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 4 -Exemption from property tax under S. 4 of Act V of 1958-Word `vest' used in S. 3 of Act (XXVIII of 1958), and S. 4 of Act (V of 1958), contemplates two different concepts of ownership and cannot be construed to convey same meaning Property acquired . under S. 3 of Act (XXVIII of 1958) not owned by Government in its full proprietary sense nor could be used for purposes other than those. of said Act-Vesting of property in Government under S. 4 of Act (V of 1958) is vesting in title as absolute owner with no qualifications, limitations or restrictions Exemption from property tax under S. 4 available to evacuee properties belonging to Federal Government in the fullest sense of ownership and not to properties acquired under S. 3 of Act (XXVIII of 1958)-Petitioner transferee of evacuee property provisionally, though P. T. D. not issued in his favour, held, liable to pay property tax.-Interpretation of statutes.1994 C L C 1100
MUZAFFARABAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus RENT CONTROLLER, MUZAFFARABAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Azad J&KP L D 1964 (W
Syed ALI IQTIDAR SHAH DARA AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE‑Respondent
Court: (b) Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), S. 3 (1), (2) (a), (b) read with Ss. 7, 11 & 20‑Scope and import‑Overriding provision‑Places restriction on power of Custodian‑Mere "vesting" of property in Custodian or holding property on behalf of Custodian not tantamount to "treating" such property as evacuee‑Overt act in respect of some specie property necessary before word "treating" could be used with regard to it Vast difference between "vesting" of property and "treating" such property as evacuee property‑Property, transfer of which has been confirmed by Custodian, ceases to be evacuee property‑Custodian, Tribunal of special jurisdiction‑Has no jurisdiction to recall any order procured by fraud‑Custodian cannot invoke S. 44, Evidence Act (I of 1872), to treat an order obtained by fraud as nullity Provision ousting jurisdiction of Special Tribunal to be strictly construed ‑ Only remedy open to Custodian is to file a suit in Civil Court Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), S. 41‑No bar to such civil suit‑Interpretation of Statutes Principle of implied repeal‑Matters in which Custodian ceases to have jurisdiction become triable by Civil Courts ‑ Section 3 (2) (a) excepts persons or property regarding which proceedings have com menced or are pending before 1‑1‑1957 from operation of S. 3 (1)‑Section 3 (2) (b) excepts from operation of S. 3 (1) only property which is occupied, supervised or managed by a person whose authority or right to do so has not been accepted or approved by Custodian ‑ Section 3 (2) (b) does not except transferees, trespassers or agents‑Immunity under S. 3 (1) not confined to citizens of Pakistan but includes all persons owning property‑Section 3 (2) (b) applies only to property which is "admittedly" evacuee‑Section 3 (2) (b) covers also cases of agents, transferees, representatives of evacuees and trespassers where property is "admittedly" evacuee‑Section 3 (2) (b) does not exclude from operation of S. 3 (1) "all" hidden property but only hidden evacuee property in illegal occupation, supervision, or management of persons other than owners of such property -Interpretation of Statutes‑Speeches made in Legislature though not admissible as aids to interpretation can be referred to as relevant and material to discover the circumstances under which particular Legislation was passed and reasons which necessitated it --Section 3 (2) (b) does not apply to owners of property or to persons whose possession, supervision or management has been approved by Custodian‑Interpretation of Statutes‑Enactment barring jurisdiction, to be interpreted strictly even if such interpretation renders some provisions nugatory‑Person declared non‑evacuee, his property cannot be declared as evacuee --Transactions confirmed by Custodian or approval given by Custodian of a right to manage, supervise, or possess property cannot be re‑opened and property declared evacuee‑Owners of property not covered by S. 3 (2) (b)‑Agents and transferees claiming through evacuees covered by S. 3 (2)(b)‑Conclusions on law points; epitomis ed in para. 18 of judgment‑Perumal v. Central Government of Pakistan P L D 1963 S C 127 ; Kishanchand Jethanand and others v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Karachi P L D 1961 Kar. 589 ; Ahmad Khan and others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan and others P L D 1963 Kar. 450 ; Mst. Siraj Fatima and others v. Mahmood Ali and others A I R 1932 All. 293 ; Biswambar Biswas v. Aparna Charan Mohary and others A I R 1935 Cal. 290 ; Ambikamoni Dasi v. Khettra Ghosai and others 30 C W N 59 ; Bishunath Tewari and others v. Mst. Mirchi A I R 1955 Pat. 66 ; Hewson v. Shelley (1914) 2 Ch. 13 ; Debendra Nath Dutt v. Administrator‑General of Bengal 35 I A 109 ; Devachand Mu1jimal v. Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1962 (unreported) ; Rais Ghazi Muhammad v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan P L D 1960 Lah. 862 ; Qutab Ali v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Lahore Writ Petition No. 197 of 1961 (unreported) and The Punjab Province v. L. Sita Ram and others P L D 1956 F C 157 ref. ; Sardar Nur Muhammad v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore Writ Petition No. 634 of 1959 (unreported) dissented from.P L D 1983 Lahore 413
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-Petitioner Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, L. D. A. AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: