1989SCMR85 (PLP)
Haji SEWA GUL Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR85 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | Haji SEWA GUL Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR85 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR85 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR85 (PLP) (Haji SEWA GUL Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan. Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Safeerullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 3 to 18.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1988.
- M. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan. Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Safeerullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 3 to 18.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the Judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar. dated 12th September, 1988 in Writ Petition No. 255 of 1986).
S.102/104--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts .185(3) & 199--No report was submitted to the Commissioner nor did he confirm the auction of land as required by S. 102/104, Land Revenue Act, 1967--No sale certificate was issued- Auction was confirmed by District Collector, who was not competent to confirm the same--Petitioner stated that mistakes committed by staff lower to Commissioner, were innocent--Mistakes whether were bona fide or otherwise and were serious in nature would amount to illegality--High Court, therefore; was justified in not exercising writ jurisdiction in favour of petitioner in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal of petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, in a matter dealt with under the Land Revenue Act, by the Revenue authorities. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rashtool Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 18, a Lambardar was declared defaulter in land revenue. His land was proposed to be sold as means of recovery of the amount. Accordingly, an auction was held wherein the petitioner was the highest bidder. It is further stated that although the proceedings of auction were to be sent to the Commissioner for confirmation, on account of innocent mistake, they were completed/concluded at a lower level and thus the mutation was also attested in favour of the petitioner. The respondents' side according to the learned counsel, filed a suit challenging the auction proceedings and obtained a temporary injunction which was set aside by the appellate Court. The respondents' revision in the High Court, however, was withdrawn presumable because their grievance was removed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the auction. through an ex parte order. The petitioner's review before the Board of Revenue having failed, he filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. He has now sought leave to appeal. As analysed by the learned counsel, the reasons which prevailed with the Board of Revenue passing the order impugned before the High Court were: that no report was submitted to the Commissioner nor did he confirm the auction as required by S. 102/104 of the Land Revenue Act; the District Collector was not competent to confirm the auction; and, no sale certificate was issued. When questioned as to whether by acceptance of petitioner's writ petition on the grounds urged before the High Court regarding (mainly) the conduct of the respondents and the proceedings initiated by them, was it proper for the High Court to restore the proceedings and orders set aside by the Board of Revenue, which were obviously illegal, he frankly stated that the mistakes committed by the staff lower to the Commissioner, were innocent mistakes. Be that as it may, without giving any verdict with regard to the bona fides or otherwise of the mistakes, they did amount to illegalities which keeping in view the purpose of the relevant provisions, were very serious. Therefore, the High Court was fully justified in case like the present one not to exercise the writ jurisdiction to favour of the petitioner who was seeking the restoration of illegal proceedings and orders. This petition fails. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./S‑215/S Petition dismissed.