Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 492 of 1963‑64, decided on 22nd September, 1964.
para. 25 (3) Transaction violating provision of para. 25(3)‑Not valid.
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.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer