Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 404 1986 SLD 404 1986 SCMR 286
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 48 and 68 of 1976, decision dated: 25-04-1983. (Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-4-1974 in Writ Petition No. 845 of 1973).
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others

VS

GHULAM MEHR and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)----Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M. L. R. 64) para. 25--Alienation of land in contravention of provisions of paragraph 25 of Regulation--Validity of--Leave granted to examine: whether transfer in favour of respondents was divisible, i.e. out of 205 Kanals of disputed land, transfer in favour of one of brothers of petitioner was to be ignored as he did not claim area and thereby petitioner was left with 102 + 102 Kanals of land which was more than a subsisting holding under para. 25 of M.L.R. No, 64; whether entire alienation which reduced holding of alienator below subsisting holding was void or was alienation void only to extent by which holding of alienator was diminished below subsisting holding. If latter view was correct, then alienation in question would be void only to extent of about 8 Kanals whereas Chief Land Commissioner had set aside entire alienation; and whether para. 25 (Martial Law Regulation 64) applied to decrees passed by Courts of competent jurisdiction. (b) West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64)-----Para. 25--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, r. 6--Alienation of land--Mutation in consequence of decree of civil Court--Validity of-­Reduction of holding below subsistence holding--Whether transaction was not sever-able and void as a whole and not in part--Restriction being on alienation of "portion of his holding" which had effect of reducing a holding to an area less than area of subsistence holding, taint was confined to a small portion which was sever-able and such severance was in accord with general principles of law and public policy behind it--Law is to be applied to decree as it stands irrespective of and ignoring subsequent concessions made by parties-Decree incorporates and affirms an antecedent transaction which is hit by statutory prohibition and to that extent alone rendered decree void-­Order of Chief Land Commissioner being in excess of his jurisdiction and based on misinterpretation of law in declaring whole decree void and unenforcible, High Courts in writ jurisdiction upheld and appeal dismissed. Maleverer v. Red Shaw (1669) 1 M 0 D 35 and…
🔒
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