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. 264 of 1965‑66, decided on 20th January 1966.
S. 3‑Does not apply to case of widow getting property as allottee and full owner under Rehabilitation Laws.
P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 54 ref.
Abdul Qayyum on behalf of Mian Abdul Khaliq for Petitioner.
This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 9th of November 1965, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
The facts of the case are that the respondent put in the claim for the property left by her husband in India and it was verified in her favour. On the basis thereof, she got the land in dispute. On the 25th of July 1964, the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, sanctioned the mutation terminating her limited interest. She went in appeal to the Collector who, relying on P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 54 accepted the appeal. The petitioner then went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, but it was also rejected. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The legal position is quite clear. The claim was verified in the name of the respondent and land was confirmed in her favour. Shel is, therefore, a grantee and a full owner. The provisions of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1962 would not be applicable in this case.. The orders passed by the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner were perfectly justified. No interference is called for. 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