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.
Civil Petition No. 535 of 1977, decided on 2nd April, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15‑3‑1977 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 2190 of 1974).
---Art. 185(3)‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, ‑ 1972 (M. L. R. 115)‑ Gift‑‑Wife reporting to village Patwari on 1‑10‑1964 that she had gifted land to her son and husband and relevant mutation was effected on 11‑11‑1965 in favour of donees‑‑Husband in exchange for such transac tion gifted land to wife and mutation therefore sanctioned on 24‑11‑1975‑Additional Chief Land Commissioner holding transaction of 1964 and that of 1974 to be independent transactions thus former having no connection with latter resulting in transaction of 24‑1‑1972 to be void under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 having been effected after 20‑12‑1971 (that of promulgation of M. L. R. 115)‑Held, two transactions were interconnected and Additional Chief Land Commissioner acted without lawful authority in separating two transactions by misreading record‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq Khan, Advo cate Supreme Court and Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nawaz Qasuri, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1983.
The relevant facts are that on 1‑10‑1964 Mst. Ghulam Zohra, respondent No. 1 reported to the Village Patwari that she had gifted 471 Kanals 5 Marlas to her husband Noor Muhammad (respondent No. 2 herein) and 1424 Kanals 5 Marlas to Muhammad Iqbal her son: Mutation No. 2 was effected on 11‑11‑1965 in favour of the said donees.
In exchange for the above transaction, Noor Muhammad her husband gifted 4 square of land in village Binda Surbana to Mst. Ghulam Zohra and Mutation No. 298 was sanctioned on 24‑1‑1975 in the village.
In. so far as the last mentioned transaction was effected after 20‑12‑1971 and after the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No, 115 the same was held void by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore on 22‑10‑1973. This order was challenged by Writ Petition No. 315 of 1974 and Writ Petition No. 541 of 1974 in the Lahore High Court and the case was remanded by order dated 25‑4‑1974 for fresh decision for seeing whether in the light of the report No. 32 dated 1‑10‑1964 transaction could not be regarded as inter‑connected and to see whether the said report had not been properly appreciated by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner. However, the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner by his order dated 28‑6‑1974 came to the conclusion that the transaction of the year 1964 and the other of 1972 were independent transactions and the former had no connection with the latter. In the result, he held that the transaction effected on 24‑1-1972 was void under Martial Law Regulation No. 115.
Dissatisfied, the respondent again moved the High Court by Writ Petition No. 2190 of 1974 and the same was accepted on 15‑3‑1977 on the view that both the transactions were indeed inter‑connected.
We have heard Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, learned A. A. G. on behalf of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner but see no reason to differ with the view) taken by the learned Judge in the High Court with regard to his conclusion that the two transactions were inter‑connected and, therefore, the Additional Chief Land Commissioner had acted without lawful authority in separating the two transactions by misreading the record.
In conclusion, this petition is dismissed.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer