P L D (Rev (PLP)
GUL AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus NIZAM‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GUL AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus NIZAM‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (GUL AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus NIZAM‑UD‑DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 117
Partition‑Question of title‑Finding of competent Court necessary even if plea of title is false or frivolous‑Revenue Officer constituting himself into Civil Court to determine question ‑Discretion.
S. 15 Review‑When allowed‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII r. 1.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR AHMAD.‑This is an application for review of my order dated 23rd August 1955, by which the revision petition of Nizam‑ud‑Din was accepted and the partition proceedings going on between him and Gul Muhammad the present petitioner, were stayed till a question of title raised by the former was decided by a competent Court. This order is sought to be reviewed mainly on two grounds: firstly that no question of title was really involved and secondly that even if a question of title was raised by Nizam‑ud‑Din, the Revenue Officer himself should determine this question sitting as a Civil Court. As regards the first contention there can be no doubt that a question of title was raised by Nizam‑ud‑Din, and it is not a mattes merely of the opinion of the Assistant Collector that no such question is in fact involved. Once a plea of title is taken up by any of the parties to a partition proceeding the issue has to be determined by a competent Court and it no longer remains in the jurisdiction of a revenue officer to say that this is a false or frivolous plea. There has thus to be a finding of competent Court on an issue of title. As regards the second question my attention has been invited to the executive directions issued in paragraph 18.9 of the Land Records Manual which advise a Revenue Officer in the interest of speedy justice to constitute himself into a Civil Court and decide a question of title himself. These executive instructions do not have any legal sanction behind them but obviously where complicated questions of law and fact arise it would, not perhaps be advisable for Assistant Collectors to determine these questions themselves. The whole matter, however, has really to be left to the discretion of the Revenue Officer concerned, and without going into the merits of the issues raised it does not appear to me advisable that the appellate authority should issue a direction to the Assistant Collector to determine the question of title himself. The law gives him the permission under section 117 of the Land Revenue Act but it is for him to exercise his judgment and decide whether he should take up the matter himself or leave it for decision by a competent Civil Court, which is probably better equipped to deal with involved questions of law and fact. Anyhow there are no grounds as envisaged by O. XLV.II rule 1 of the Civil P. C., which would justify a review of the order already passed and the petition stands dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed.