1991 PLP 1704 (CLC)
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1704 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1704 (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 1991 PLP 1704 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1704 (CLC) (Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD DIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hayat for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 164‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Mutation, review of‑‑‑ Review of mutation sought from Revenue Authorities after a lapse of over 12 years was disallowed by Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Proper course for the petitioners was to have approached the Civil Court for the relief prayed for‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No.2730 of 1991, decided on 8th April, 1991. ‑‑‑‑S. 164‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Mutation, review of‑‑‑ Review of mutation sought from Revenue Authorities after a lapse of over 12 years was disallowed by Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Proper course for the petitioners was to have approached the Civil Court for the relief prayed for‑‑‑Constitutional petition was dismissed. Ch. Muhammad Hayat for Petitioners. The petitioners by means of this Constitutional petition have called in question the validity of order dated 12‑2‑1991 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, whereby he dismissed their revision petition and maintained the order dated 25‑5‑1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), who had reversed the order dated 29‑1‑1986 of the Collector allowing review of Mutation No.231 dated 23‑8‑1971 on application filed by the petitioners on 9‑2‑1984. The main ground pressed into service by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, in rejecting the revision petition was that the petitioners sought review of the mutation after a lapse of over 12 years without making application for condonation of delay. The other ground for the aforementioned order was that the entries in mutation were carried out in more than one Jamabandis and the proper course for the petitioners was to challenge the same in civil Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Muhammad Ismail vendor, who had alienated the property through registered deed in 1965 was not owner of the land, as such, the sale‑deed in favour of Ranjha vendee was of no effect, the period of limitation, therefore, could not be counted against the petitioners having challenged a void order.
3. The contention raised by learned counsel has no merit. It is not denied that the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of a registered sale‑deed in 1971 and the petitioners had applied for review of the mutation over a period of 12 years when the entries pertaining to mutation were reflected in several Jamabandis. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, rightly observed that the proper course for the petitioners was to have approached the civil Court for the relief prayed for. There is no substance in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. G‑454/L Petition dismissed.