Pakistan Case Law← Search
PLD 1986 Rev. 6

Nawab MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND OTHERS vs SULTAN AHMED

CitationPLD 1986 Rev. 6
CourtSindh Revenue Board
Case No.S. R. 0. R. No, 1562 of 1974-75,
Date1976-04-09
Judge(s)Bashir Ahmed Moriani
ResultRevision rejected.

ORDER

' This is a revision petition against the otder dated 9-10-1974, passed by the learned Land Commissioner, Sind, whereby he declared the following two alienations stated to have been made by the petitioner Nawab Muzaffar Hussain Khan as void on the ground that these were made in violation of provisions of para. 25 of Land Reforms Regulation 64 of 1959 :- {{TABLE}} .s .r.1,..Awy ..011.

Deh Name and Rela- Kind and Consi- Muta- tion Area Date deration tion Entry 11immy aill111.1WM Toori 1. Muhammad Din ) 169-23 Sale RD 77068/83 No, 27 Taluka son of Nawab Din I 15-12-71 M. Khas

2. Muhammad Hayat 19-11-70 son of Hakam Ali others 381 Tal:

3. Abdul Ghafoor 85-14 Sale Rd. 24751/50 No, 5 M. Khas son of Khaju Khan 9-6-68 20-7-68 others {{TABLE}}

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners. He has also given arguments in writing, The main pleas raised by him are that some of properties were declared Muslim property in Deh Toori and that the balance area in Deb 381 had already been cancelled and that no land was left with Nawab Muzaffar Hussain Khan after the above alienations and that there was no contravention of the provisions of para. 25 of the repealed Regulation. He has referred to the certificate issued by Tapedar on the bases of which the alienations were registered.

3.I have considered the case. The case had been adjourned a number of time but the counsel for the petitioners has not been able to substantiate his contention by any documentary evidence.

According to the Khatoonies and the entries on record the following area had remained in balanced with Nawab Muzaffar Hussain Khan after the above alienations. DEH AREA 381 8-20 acres Toori 11-39 acres.

The certificates, if any issued by the Tapedars, were erroneous. The provisions of para. 25 of the Repealed Regulation are mandatory in 4 nature and contravention of the provisions can in no case be condoned. For these reasons the revision petition, merits no consideration and is rejected.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search