Law: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959

Section: 15,1(7)

  West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 15 read with para. 1(7)-"Owner"-Only persons whose names were entered as owners in revenue records to be treated as "existing owners" Persons making declarations in Forms L.C.-I and L.C.-II not entered as "owners" in revenue records-Provisions of para. IS not attracted.     ORDER   This order will dispose of the following twelve revisions:-   Savitri v. State (Revision No. 32 of 1958-59). Ganga Ram v. State (Revision No. 33 of 1958-59). Dev Raj Mal v. State (Revision No. 34 of 1958-59). Kamoo v. State (Revision No. 35 of 1958-59). Rattanchand v. State (Revision No. 36 of 1958-59). Murli v. State (Revision No. 37 of 1958-59). Chandi Bai v. State (Revision No. 38 of 1958-59). Dhanomal v. State (Revision No. 39 of 1958-59). Vishendas v. State (Revision No. 40 of 1958-59). Mst. Sati Bai v. State (Revision No. 41 of 1958-59). Mrs. Padi Bai v. State (Revision No. 30 of 1958-59). Tulsidas v. State (Revision No. 31 of 1958-59).   These twelve revisions have been filed against orders dated the 24th June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Hydera bad,, who rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners.   The facts of the case are that all the twelve petitioners put in Forms LC-I and LC-II under the provisions of para. 15 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The Deputy Land Commissioner scrutinised the forms and discovered that all the petitioners were not existing owners as entered in the revenue records, and did not, therefore, attract the provisions of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64. Forms LC-I and LC-II put in by them were filed.   All the petitioners went in appeal to the Land Commissioner who rejected their appeals. Hence these twelve revisions.   I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His main grievance is that the Deputy Land Commissioner fixed the 29th of June 1959, as the date on which the petitioners would be heard, with regard to Forms LC-I and LC-II put in by them. Instead of waiting for that date, the Deputy Land Commissioner passed orders earlier in absence of the petitioners. No opportunity was given to them…