Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH KHAN versus THE STATE


West Pakistan Land Reform Regulation 1959 West Pakistan Land Reform Regulation, 1959, paragraph 15 reads with paragraph 9 (f) applicants, while in Forms LC1 and LC II unaware that its unit 36, 000 so are not applying for concessions under paragraph. 9 (f) Scrotney disclosed that the applicants in its units 38,241 were instructed to be allowed to receive privileges under paragraph 9 (f).

P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 18

Before I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan

MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH KHAN ---Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Revision No. 102 of 1958‑59, decided on 18th August 1959.

West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959,

para. 15 read with para. 9(f)‑Petitioner, while making declarations in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II unaware that his units would exceed 36,000 and there fore not applying for concessions under para. 9(f)‑Scrutiny reveal ing that his units came to 38,241‑Petitioner directed to be allowed to avail of concessions under para. 9(f ) notwithstanding his failure to make application within prescribed time.

Ataullah Mukhtar for Petitioner.

ORDER

This revision has been filed against an order, dated the 2nd July 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, D. I. Khan, whereby he refused to allow the petitioner to avail of concessions permissible under paragraph 9 (f) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64.

The facts of the case are that, during the scrutiny of Form LC‑I and Form LC‑II, it transpired that the number of units of the land owned by the petitioner came to 38,241. The petitioner then requested the Deputy Land Commissioner to allow him to avail of the concessions permissible under paragraph 9 ( f ) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64. This request was rejected. He went in appeal to the Land Commissioner who dismissed the appeal, but forwarded the case to the Chief Land Commissioner for consideration as to whether or not the time‑limit in such hard cases should be relaxed. A revision has been filed against these orders.

I have heard the Mukhtar of the petitioner: In this case, no application under paragraph 9 (f ) was made because the petitioner thought that his units would not be more than 36,000. Actual calculation showed that the units were more than this limit. He then made a request for availing of the concessions permissible under paragraph 9 (f ). In his case, it was not, therefore, possible for him to, make any application within the prescribed limit. I, therefore, accept the revision and direct that the petitioner should be allowed to avail of the concessions permissible under paragraph 9 (f ) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64.

S. Q. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
law firms from Dandot lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.