Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)

Section: 42

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)

Section: 42

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XLI,R.27,O.I,R.10,100,O.VI,R.17

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 85(5)

(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S. 42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.85(5)---Mutation attested on basis of registered sale-deed---Scope---Such mutation would remain intact and could not be cancelled till existence of such sale-deed. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R.115), Para.24---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration---Mutation attested on basis of registered sale-deed subsequently cancelled by Consolidation Officer to be violative of Para.24 of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972---Validity---Sale-deed found mention that defendant (vendor) was selling his whole land in Mouza, and if any part thereof did not find mention therein, then same would be presumed to have been sold and included therein and Revenue Officer would be bound to attest mutation thereof in favour of plaintiff (vendee)---Revenue Officer was legally bound to attest mutation of whole land of defendant in favour of plaintiff---Consolidation Officer had no power to check violation of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972---Land Reforms Authorities could not set aside registered sale-deed---Para.24---Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 had been declared to be violative of Injunctions of Islam---Impugned order was not only absolutely without jurisdiction, but had been passed without notice to plaintiff, who was in possession of suit-land, thus, limitation could not be hurdle against his rights---Defendant could not take benefit of his own wrong---Suit was decreed in circumstances. Sajwara and others v. Federal Government of Pakistan PLD 1989 FSC 80 rel. (c) Limitation--- ----Order absolutely without jurisdiction and passed without notice to opposite party in possession of suit property---Effect---Limitation could not be a hurdle against rights of such party---Illustration. (d) Administration of justice--- ----Wrongdoer could not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong---Illustration. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 27---Additional evidence, production of---Scope---Such evidence could be allowed, if court itself required same for reaching at right conclusion of case.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492