| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 3151 = 1974 SLD 3151 = 1974 PLD 520 |
Lahore High Court
.Writ Petition No. 845 of 1973, decided on 25th. April 1974.
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan and K. M. A. Satndani, .JJ
Khalid Farooq Qureshi for
Respondent No. 2. Muhammad Saeed Ahmad for
Respondent No. 3.
.Writ Petition No. 845 of 1973, decided on 25th. April 1974.
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan and K. M. A. Satndani, .JJ
Khalid Farooq Qureshi for
Respondent No. 2. Muhammad Saeed Ahmad for
Respondent No. 3.
GHULAM MEHR-Petitioner
VERSUS
CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959
Section: 25
Law: Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972
Section: 32
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199 and West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation [M. L. R. No. 64 of 1959], para. 25-Chief Land Commissioner failing to attend to points and aspects of case raised before him-Failure amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested. Muhammad Ali and another v. Isa Khan and another P L, D 1967 W. P, (Rev.) 22 considered. (b) West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (M. L. R. No. 64 of 1959] Para. 25-True import of para. 25-Object of para. 25 not to stop landholders from obtaining good price of their lands but only to avoid fragmentation of holdings. The intention of para. 25 of M. L. R. 64 of 1959, was not to stop the landholders from obtaining necessary credits or otherwise a good price for their lands, but only to avoid fragmentation of their holding. The true import of Paras. 25(3) and 25 (5) of M. L. R. 64 of 1959 is that they did not render the whole transfer as void but only that bit of land by which the subsistence holding was reduced. Joydeb Agarwala v. Baitulmal Karkhana Ltd. P L D 1965 S C 37 ; Rotherford v. Adams A I R 1915 P C 113 ; Mst. Karam 111ahi v. The State P L D 1974 Rev. 17 and Mst. Raj Bibi and others v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner and others Writ Petition No. 1791 of 1973 (unreported) ref. (c) Family settlement Settlement does not amount to an alienation by one member to another (obiter). A family settlement does not confer any distinct title on any member but each member relinquishes claim in respect of property assigned to another and recognises the antecedent right of that other person to the property which fell in his share, such settlement does not amount to an alienation by one member to another. Ameer Hasan v. Muhammad Ejaz Hussain A I R 1929 Oudh 134 ; Sital Singh and others v. Gijindra eehadur Singh and others A I R 1929 Oudh 373 ; Sultan Ahmad Khan v. Sirajul Haque and others A I R 1938 All. 170 ; Lola Behare Lal v. Ran! Mewa Konwer (1968) 3 Agra H C R 82 ; Ramgopal v. Tulsi Ram and another A I R 1928 All. 641 ; Mst. Hiran Bibi and others v. Mst. Sohan Bibi A I R 1914 P C 44 ; Martin Cashin and others v. Paler J. Cashin A I R 1938 P C 103 ; Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishne Narain…