1997 PLP 1964 (CLC)
RIAZ HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1964 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Said, Member (Judicial‑1) |
| Parties | RIAZ HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVH of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1964 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVH of 1967)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1964 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Akhtar Said, Member (Judicial‑1).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1964 (CLC) (RIAZ HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mazhar Hussain Bukhari for Petitioners.
- Malik Muhammad Fiazul Haq for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 163(2)‑‑‑Review‑‑‑If an Assistant Collector, Collector or Commissioner mistakenly would not obtain sanction of next higher authority as envisaged in S.163(2) of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and proceeded to review an order passed by his predecessor‑in‑office, the defect would not jeopardise applications for review, but would be deemed to be pending for disposal before Assistant Collector, Collector or Commissioner as the case might be. Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig for L.Rs. of Petitioner No. 1.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Mazhar Hussain Bukhari for Petitioners. Malik Muhammad Fiazul Haq for Respondents. The application of the respondent for partition was ordered by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 9‑10‑1983 to be proceeded ex parle against the petitioners. On 8‑4‑1984 the mode of partition was approved by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade/Tehsildar, again ex parte against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners went to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade/Tehsildar for the cancellation of the ex parte orders dated 9‑10‑1983 and 8‑4‑1984. The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Grade by his order dated 23‑7‑1988 set aside the orders dated 9‑10‑1983 and 8‑4‑1984 passed by his predecesor.
3. The respondent went to the Collector in appeal which was accepted by the Collector on 17‑1‑1990. The petitioners" revision petition v1as rejected by the Additional Commissioner on 17‑3‑1991. Hence the present petition.
4. Even if the order dated 23‑7‑1988 is construed as an order under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, and not an order under the C.P.C. Order 9, Rule 13 or an order under Rule 6 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, it has to be borne in mind that if it was incumbent on the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Grade to seek permission of the next higher authority, and he failed to do so, the petitioners' application for review should not suffer for any such failure of the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Grade could either reject the application or move the next higher authority viz. the Collector for seeking permission to review. If he failed to do either, it was no fault of the petitioners.
5. Moreover it has been urged by the petitioners that the original application of the respondent for partition included the names of some co‑sharers who were already dead.
6. In view of the above I would set aside the order of the Collector dated 17‑1‑1990, the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 17‑3‑1991 as well as the order of the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Grade dated 23‑7‑1988, and hereby order that the original application for review of the petitioners shall stand restored before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, who shall decide it afresh in accordance with the law. If an Assistant Collector, Collector, or Commissioner mistakenly does not obtain the sanction of the next higher authority, as envisaged in section 163(2) of the Land Revenue Act and proceeds to review an order passed by his predecessor‑in‑office, the defect shall not jeopardise the applications for review but the application shall be deemed to be pending disposed before the Assistant Collector, Collector or Commissioner, as the case may be. H.B.T./87/R???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.