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 Side No. 48 of 1954‑55, decided on 2nd May 1955. District Rawalpindi.
S. 38‑Occupancy rights‑Abandonment‑Question not to be decided in mutation proceedings but by a regular suit.
The question of abandonment of occupancy rights should not be decided in a summary manner during mutation pro ceedings but has to be determined by a suit under the Tenancy Act.
Lai Khan v. Malik Fateh Khan P L D (Rev.) 1950 Ph. 241 and Mst. Begum Bi v. Muzaffar Khan P L D (Rev.) 1954 Pb. 14 fol.
Iqbal Muhammad for Mahmud Manto, for Petitioner.
Nur Ahmad, for Respondent.
.‑This order will dispose of both the connected revision petitions Nos. 48 and 49 of 1954‑55.
The order of the Collector Rawalpindi District, dated 22nd January 1955 should be read with this order. The decision arrived at by the Assistant Collector in the muta tion proceedings by which he removed the name of the petitioner who is an occupancy tenant is obviously incorrect. It has been held by the Financial Commissioners consistently that the question of abandonment of occupancy rights should not be decided in a summary manner during mutation pro ceedings but has to be determined by a suit under the Tenancy Act. My attention in this connection bas been invited to Lal Khan v. Malik Fateh Khan (P L D (Rev.) 1950 Pb. 241.) and Mst. Begum Bi v. Muzaffar Khan (P L D (Rev.) 1954 Pb. 14.). I would therefore quash the order of the Assistant Collector and restore the original entries in the revenue records as they existed before the order under reference was passed.
A. H. Order quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer