Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 516 1981 SLD 516 1981 SCMR 908
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 185 of 1975, decision dated: 5-07-1980.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 12-12-1974 in W. P. 280 of 1965)
ANWARUL HAQ, C.J. AND DORAB PATEL, J
S. M. Almas Ali and S. Ali Almam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD TALIB AND others

VS

MEMBER (R.), BOARD OF REVENUE AND others

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---- S. 42 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199-Petitioners not raising all available objections against mutation in their appeal before Collector-Held : Petitioners cannot be allowed to reagitate such objections in High Court and Supreme Court-­Orders of revenue authorities being passed on appeal and revision filed by petitioners themselves petitioners debarred from challenging such orders in writ proceedings before High Court notwithstanding such orders having been void. Ghulam Mohiudin Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1964 S C 829 ref. ORDER DORAB PATEL, J.-The dispute in this petition for leave relates to land in Lyallpur District. According to the petitioner, Mst. Nathi, daughter of Ghulam Farid, had filed a claim for property inherited by her from her father and the claim was verified and she was allotted land in Chak No. 72fJ.B. Tehsil and District Lyallpur. Mst. Nathi died on 1-6-1959 leaving behind two daughters, Ms'. Sandho and Mst. Amanat. Therefore, on her death the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of her daughters, on 9-6-1959 by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Lyallpur. According to the petitioner, this mutation was sanctioned on the assumption that Mst. Nathi did not leave behind any collaterals: But, the petitioners claim to be the collaterals of Ghulam Farid; therefore, on 26-3-1960, they filed an appeal against the Assistant Collector's order of 9-6-1959. As the appeal was time­barred, they had made an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, but the learned Collector, who heard the appeal was not impressed by their explanation for the delay, therefore, by the order dated 8-8-1960, he dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was time-barred. The petitioners challenged this order in a revision before the commissioner and their only plea appears to be that Mst. Nathi was governed by custom, therefore, they, as the collaterals of Ghulam Farid, were entitled to succeed to the estate of Ghulam Farid, except for the shares to which the daughters of Mst. Nathi were entitled under the Shariat. This revision was dismissed by the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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