2021 PLP 912 (YLR)
ZAFAR ABBAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 18 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 912 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR ABBAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 18 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 912 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 912 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 912 (YLR) (ZAFAR ABBAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 18 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Iqbal Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.
- Arshad Jahangir Jhoja, Addl. Advocate General for Respondents on Court's call.
Headnotes / Summary
S.135
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioners assailed concurrent orders passed by revenue authorities for partition of joint holdings
Petitioners failed to prove that respondent was not sharer or he was awarded more land than his entitlement
Revenue hierarchy while passing concurrent orders focused compactness of Wandas and potential/ worth/location of block awarded to sharers
High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution could not go deep into factual controversy requiring evidence
Orders in question were neither coram non judice nor ultra vires
High Court declined to interfere in the matter as the orders were passed while keeping in mind the parameters in dividing property to right holders as per their shares
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.
The petition in hand calls in question vires of the concurrent orders passed by the revenue hierarchy right from the Court of first instance up to the apex forum, whereby application made by respondent No.2 under section 135 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the partition of joint holding was accorded. The record suggests which otherwise is also not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners that long ago respondent No.2 had tabled afore-noted application for separation of his share out of the area falling in joint khewat and allowed on 05.07.2014, but without extending any right of audience to the petitioners, therefore, the matter remanded by the District Collector to the AC-I. The latter again accorded it in presence of present petitioners vide order dated 18.06.2015, which sustained through dismissal of appeal, revision petition as well as ROR by the District Collector, Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and learned Member, Board of Revenue on 17.02.2020, 18.03.2020 and 22.10.2020 respectively.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners despite taking maximum time failed to convince that either respondent No.2 was not sharer or he was awarded more land than his entitlement. The revenue hierarchy while passing the impugned concurrent orders focused the compactness of wandas and the potential/ worth/location of the block awarded to the sharers. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot go deep into factual controversy requiring the evidence, whereas on its face value neither impugned orders are coram non judice nor ultra vires rather were passed while keeping in mind the afore-noted parameters in dividing the property to the right holders as per their shares. Thus no case of interference with the impugned orders is made out, therefore, this petition being meritless is dismissed in limine. MH/Z-3/L Petition dismissed.