Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 142 of 1958‑59, decided on 4th September 1959.

para. 9(e), (f)‑Person getting land as gift from father prior to imposition of Martial Law and subsequently exchanging same with his sister's land‑"Existing owner" by virtue of gift and not by exchange‑Not entitled to benefits of clauses (e) and (f) of paragraph 9.

Ayaz Shaikh for Petitioner.

This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 10th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Khairpur, whereby he refused to consider the petitioner as existing owner for the purposes of paragraph 9 (e) and 9 (f ) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and refused his request for he calculation of the area retained by him on the basis of Banjar Qadim and Banjar Jadid.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner got a gift from his father prior to the imposition of the Martial Law. The area which he so received, was subsequently exchanged with the area in the possession of his sister. While a decision was made in respect of his Form LC‑II, the Deputy Land Commissioner refused to give the petitioner the benefit under paragraph 9 (f). He also rejected the request of the petitioner for getting his produce indices calculated on the basis of Banjar Qadim and Banjar Jadid. The petitioner went in appeal to the Land Commissioner but the appeal was also rejected. Hence this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has laid stress on the property aspect and has argued that this property was received in exchange and not by gift. For the purposes of paragraph 9 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64, it is not the property but the manner by which a particular person became the existing owner. If a person becomes an existing owner by virtue of a gift, he cannot be given the benefits of clauses (9) .(e) and 9 (f ) of Martial Law Regulation No. 64.It is immaterial what happens to the property he originally got as a gift.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the fact that the words Banjar Jadid' and Banjar Qadim' have been mentioned in the produce indices dealing with districts of Khairpur and Hyderabad Divisions. Merely an indication as to how calculation is to be made is no authority for introducing terms which do not exist in the revenue records. The basic principle is that the calculation of produce indices has to be made on the basis of revenue records as they existed in Kharif 1957 and Rabi 1958. If there is no land entered as Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadim in the harvest mentioned above, the produce indices for this type of land cannot be applicable.

In these circumstances, there appears no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is rejected hereby.

S Q. Revision rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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