2005 PLP 534 (CLC)
NAWAB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 534 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Tariq Yusuf, Member (Colonies) |
| Parties | NAWAB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 534 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 534 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Tariq Yusuf, Member (Colonies).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 534 (CLC) (NAWAB‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Aslam Tahir for Petitioner.
- Abdul Razzaq Rahi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Remand of case‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Review‑‑‑Subordinate Revenue forums had no power to remand‑‑‑Contention of the petitioner was that under Thal Development Authority Act, 1949, Executive District Officer (Revenue) was competent to remand the case to a lower judicial forum‑‑ Contention was repelled as Thal Development Authority Act, 1949 would nor take precedence over West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which was the prime law‑‑‑Order of Executive District Officer (Revenue) being legally deficient, was rightly set aside by Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue and case was rightly remanded to Executive District Officer (Revenue) .for fresh decision on merits within specified period‑‑ In absence of any fault with the order passed by Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, review petition was dismissed and impugned order was upheld/restored.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Aslam Tahir for Petitioner. Abdul Razzaq Rahi for Respondents. Present petition has been filed under section 8 of Board of Revenue, Punjab, Act, 1957 against order, dated 14‑1‑2004 of Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
2. Petitioner argues that order, dated 14‑1‑2004 cancelled ex parte order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), dated 5‑6‑2003. Opportunity of being heard was not provided to the petitioner. Under T.D.A. Act, 1949 Executive District Officer (Revenue) is competent to remand the case to a lower judicial forum.
3. Argument on, behalf of respondent is that impugned order has been passed lawfully.
4. Main point in this case is that Executive District Officer (Revenue), Layyah remanded the case to lower Court although no power of remand vested with him. Power to remand vests only with Board of Revenue, Punjab. Subordinate Revenue Judiciary has no power of remand. Thal Development Authority Act does not take precedence over Land Revenue Act, 1967 which is the prime law. Order of. Executive District Officer (Revenue) being legally deficient was set aside vide impugned order and the case was remanded to Executive District Officer (Revenue) by Member (Colonies) for fresh decision on merit within 60 days. I do not find any fault with this order.
5. I, therefore, dismiss this review petition and uphold/restore the impugned order. H.B.T./16/Rev. Petition dismissed.