2008 PLP 589 (CLC)
FAIZULLA H — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD GUL — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 589 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Zafar Iqbal, Member (Judicial-I) |
| Parties | FAIZULLA H — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD GUL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 589 (CLC)?
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 2008 PLP 589 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Zafar Iqbal, Member (Judicial-I).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 589 (CLC) (FAIZULLA H — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD GUL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saif-ul-Haq Ziay for Petitioner.
- Ameer Umar Farooq Nathoka for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 163 & 164
Revision against impugned order passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), whereby he accepted the review petition
Executive District Officer (Revenue) while passing order did not give any cogent reason to accept claim of review petitioner
Impugned orders of the lower forums were set aside and case was remanded to District Officer (Revenue) for passing a speaking order after listening to the parties.
Judgment & Decree
ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).
The above captioned revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 1-2-2007 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, whereby he accepted the review petition of present respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case have already been discussed in the impugned order. There is no need to repeat again here.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is defaulter of the Government dues as per. revenue field staff report. Respondent is not of good behaviour and public has refused to pay him revenue. He is also involved in criminal cases and in possession of public graveyards' land, He further stated that section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, have not been attracted in the present case. No immaterial irregularity has been committed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar. He prayed to accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order.
4. The counsel for the respondent argued that Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar while accepting the review petition has passed a legal speaking judicial order and there is no illegality or irregularity having been committed by them. He~ further stated that respondent was working as temporary Lambardar and there was not `a single complaint against the respondent. He prayed to dismiss the revision petition and maintained the impugned order.
5. Heard. Record perused. The Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar while passing order did not give any cogent reason to accept the claim of the petitioner. The District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar has also passed a non-speaking order in favour of the petitioner. In view of this I set aside the impugned orders of the lower Courts and remand case back to District Officer (Revenue) Bhakkar, who should pass the detail order afresh after listening the parties. H.B.T./7/Rev. Order accordingly.