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

SAMO versus OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI


The opinion of paragraph 29 is that the Federal Land Commission does not authorize any person to exercise the powers, such as the option to use any person in paragraph 29, misconceptions, primarily such options. Only those granted to the federal government, which can give any person the option of exercising the same powers under paragraph 29, can be exercised. The Chairman and the Federal Land Commission as an individual do not exercise the powers of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, viz., Para 29, and argue that the powers of Section D under Para 29 have been exhausted, not correct.

1981 C L C 1308

[Karachi]

Before Zafar Hussain Mirza and J. Mahmud, JJ

SAMO AND 5 OTHERS‑Petitioners

versus

THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL

LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents

Petition No. D‑123 of 1977, decided on 23rd May, 1979.

(a) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115]---

‑‑ Para. 29‑Contention that Federal Land Commission not authority as contemplated in para. 29 to authorise any person to exercise power thereunder, held, misconceived‑Basically such powers conferred on Federal Government, who may authorise any person to exercise same‑Powers under para. 29 could only be exercised by Chairman and Member of Federal Land Commission as authorised person Additional Chief Land Commissioner, as such, held, not exercises powers under para. 29 and argument that powers of O. S. D. under para. 29 stood exhausted, not correct.

(b) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115]---

‑‑‑ Para. 7(l). Explanation III‑Consideration for transaction‑Mere fact that consideration for transaction may appear to be inadequate-- Cannot be sole basis for rejecting a transaction as not bona file‑Commission on other consideration mentioned in Explanation III, finding transaction bona fide‑Not under any obligation to reject same Transaction a Registered Sale Deed, mutation effected before crucial date and transferee found in effective possession and management of property and paying land revenue‑‑Jurisdiction, held, not exercised arbitrarily in circumstances of case.

(c) Muhammadan Law‑----

-----Gift‑‑Father making gift in favour of minors‑‑Transfer of posses sion, held, not necessary‑Donor willingly obtaining mutation of entries in favour of donees Absence of any record regarding acceptance of gift by major donee in circumstances, held, immaterial.

Ali Ahmed v. Government of Sind P L D 1976 Kar. 316 rel.

Imam Ali Kazi for Petitioner

Mr. Hosnain for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 13th May, 1979.

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
attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Theing Jattan More 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.