2009 PLP 558 (YLR)
ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), PAKPATTAN SHA.RIF and
| Citation | 2009 PLP 558 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Asghar Haider, J |
| Parties | ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), PAKPATTAN SHA.RIF and |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 558 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 558 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Asghar Haider, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 558 (YLR) (ARSHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), PAKPATTAN SHA.RIF and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ---Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Dispute as to property---Condemning petitioner unheard---Counsel for petitioner had submitted that petitioner was condemned unheard, as he was not associated with the proceedings, though he had vested right in the property subject matter of the petition---Petitioner had made a simple prayer that an opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioner and thereafter the matter be decided, in accordance with law---Validity---Petitioner was condemned unheard, which was against the settled principles of law---Impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to appear before the authority who would hear the petitioner and other stakeholders and thereafter would proceed to decide the matter, in accordance with law within specified period.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.
The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was condemned unheard, he was not associated with the proceedings, although he had vested right in the property subject-matter of this petition, he therefore, makes a simple prayer, that an opportunity of hearing be granted to him and thereafter the matter be decided, in accordance with law, by the respondent No.1.
2. The learned Additional A.G. has reservation to grant of the request of the petitioner, according to him, the respondents have ample powers under the Land Revenue Act, to make and correct revenue entries, if they are satisfied that error has crept into record. In the present matter the applicant (Arshad Ali) was heard likewise the revenue officials were also summoned and they concurred to his viewpoint. However, the learned A.A-G. could not controvert the assertion of the petitioner, that he was not granted opportunity of hearing.
3. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was condemned unheard, this is against the settled principles of law. Resultantly, this petition is allowed the impugned order is set-aside, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1 on 21-2-2008 who shall hear the petitioner and other stakeholders and thereafter proceed to decide the matter, in accordance with law, within one month of today.
4. A compliance report be submitted to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), of this Court. H.B.T./A-157/L Petition accepted.