P L D 1962 W (PLP)
Captain KHAIR‑UD‑DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8-- Review‑Not competent where enactment under which relief claimed did not provide for Review‑Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), S. 33‑P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 39 rel.. |
| Bench Members | A. M. Khan Leghari Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | Captain KHAIR‑UD‑DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8-- Review‑Not competent where enactment under which relief claimed did not provide for Review‑Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), S. 33‑P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 39 rel.. bench comprising: A. M. Khan Leghari Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1962 W (PLP) (Captain KHAIR‑UD‑DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8-- Review‑Not competent where enactment under which relief claimed did not provide for Review‑Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), S. 33‑[P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 39 rel.].
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8-- Review‑Not competent where enactment under which relief claimed did not provide for Review‑Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), S. 33‑[P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 39 rel.]. This is a review petition against the appellate order dated 15 3‑1961, by Nasir Ahmad, M. B. R., whereby he had accepted the petitioner's revision to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed under section 33 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, from three times to twice the normal rates. The preliminary question for adjudication is whether this review is competent in view of the rule laid down by Full Board in P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.)
39. In that ruling my learned brothers I. U. Khan, R. A. Mahamadi and A K. Malik, M. B. Rs. were pleased to give the finding that the Board of Revenue can entertain revision petitions under section 5 (2) of the Board of Revenue Act 1957, only if there is a provision for revision in a particular Act under which the case had been decided and since the N. W. F. P. Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act of 1950, does not provide an aggrieved person with a right of revision, the Board of Revenue was held not to be competent to entertain a revision. The position in the present review under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, is entirely similar. The Canal and Drainage Act and Rules, as adapted by the former Bahawalpur State Government although they provide for appeals and revision, do not provide for reviews. I must, therefore, hold that no review lies. However, even if I were to hold that a review did lie, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me that a case for a review is made out under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, since neither fresh evidence has been discovered, which was not available to the petitioners despite due diligence, nor is there any error apparent on the face of the record. A. H. Petition rejected.