1986 PLP 1040 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD YASIN BAIG and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1040 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Faz1‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN BAIG and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1040 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1040 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Faz1‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1040 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD YASIN BAIG and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner.
- Ex parte for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
- Date of hearing: 7th April 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑ ‑‑‑9. 2(2)‑‑Rights‑‑Conferment of‑‑Requirements‑‑Where claimant applied for conferment of certain rights relying on provisions of a scheme, rules or statute, designated functionaries, held, would be required to attend to matter with open mind, taking into consideration relevant factors and arrive at decision thereon speaking order. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction reason exercise of‑‑Order of Tribunals functionary passed in utter disregard of law, held, would render such order null and void‑‑High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could declare such order to be without jurisdiction and of no legal, effect High Court directed designated functionary to decide same afresh in accordance with requirements of law after thorough enquiry into entitlement of claimants.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner. Ex parte for Respondents Nos. 1 to
4. Date of hearing: 7th April 1986. This writ petition has been filed on the grievance that petitioners entitlement was reduced on account of change in classification of the land abandoned by them in India and thus the area was cancelled from their allotment by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities.
2. The precise grievance in the present writ petition is that the petitioners in spite of that are in possession of Khasra No. 1593 measuring 14 Kanals 15 Marlas and thus are eligible to purchase it under the latest prevailing policy of the Provincial Government in the Board of Revenue as they fulfil the condition of being in possession over the land in question from the target date.
3. It is complained that the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue as conveyed through Annexure is not a speaking order and it merely says that land is to be auctioned. It is argued that whenever a right is created in favour of a person, it also carries a corresponding obligation on the statutory functionary to address himself to all the jurisdictional facts as well as question of entitlement of a person and then to pass a reasoned order.
4. Nobody has turned up on behalf of respondents despite service. They are accordingly ordered ex parte.
5. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that where a person has applied for conferment of certain rights relying on the provisions of a scheme, rules or statute, the designated functionaries are obliged to attend to his matter with open mind; and take into consideration all the relevant factors and after due inquiry render a just decision through a speaking order. These requirements are not met in the impugned order, which vitiates it.
6. In view of what has been 'stated above, the impugned order o the learned Member, Board of Revenue as per Annexure 'E', dated 10‑1‑1982 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law after a thorough inquiry into the entitlement of the petitioners under the law and prevailing policy. While doing so, the learned Member will also take into consideration any other relevant circumstances including the right of any third party.. As nobody has opposed this writ petition, there shall be no order as to costs. S.A. Case remanded.