1997 PLP 198 (MLD)
SULTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus M.B.R. and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 198 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | SULTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus M.B.R. and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 198 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 198 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 198 (MLD) (SULTAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus M.B.R. and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Khalil Yousafzai for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.24‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 172 & 53‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Competence‑‑‑Suit for recovery of produce decreed against appellants (tenants) was affirmed up to Board of Revenue‑‑‑Petitioners claimed that they had secured proprietary rights in respect of land in question, but respondents with collusion of revenue staff had fraudulently changed Revenue Record and then instituted suit for recovery of produce which had been decreed‑‑‑Petitioners claimed that they themselves had instituted suit which was still pending adjudication‑‑ Petitioners also filed Constitutional petition against judgments of revenue hierarchy‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Orders passed by Courts of Revenue hierarchy were not illegal for same were recorded with lawful authority‑‑‑Constitutional petition against such orders was, thus, not maintainable‑‑‑Besides, adequate/alternative remedy was available to petitioners and they had admittedly resorted to same, by filing suit in respect of declaration of their title which was still pending adjudication in Civil Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioners was not only frivolous but without any substance and same was not maintainable in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Khalil Yousafzai for Petitioners. Briefly stated, the facts of the case in hand are that the petitioners used to cultivate the suit land since long. However, after the death of the pre decessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, the suit land was resumed in favour of the Government of Pakistan under the Martial Law Regulation. Certain mutations were attested in this respect. Since the Land Commission had become the owner of the land in question therefore it allegedly directed the petitioners to deposit the sale consideration in respect of the said land in the Government Treasury. A direction was also issued to the petitioners not to pay the produce to the respondents. It has been alleged further that thereafter the suit land was transferred to the petitioners who became its owners. The petitioners have contended that the respondents, in collusion with the revenue staff, fraudulently changed the Revenue Record of the rights and then instituted a suit for the recovery of the produce against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners submitted that as a counterblast they also instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents in the Civil Court at Mardan which is pending disposal.
3. According to the petitioners the respondents' suit in respect of the recovery of the produce was decreed in the first instance by the Revenue Court. The verdict of the Revenue Court was however challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal but their appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed. Resultantly they approached the Member, Board of Revenue for the redress of their grievance by filing a second revision petition but failed again: Hence this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also gone through the impugned orders carefully.
5. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners conceded and rightly so that the Revenue Courts had the jurisdiction to pass the respective orders. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Court, the lower Appellate Court and the Revisional Court of Additional Commissioner as well as Member, Board of Revenue are not illegal as the same have not been recorded without lawful authority. This writ petition, in our opinion, in the circumstances, is evidently not maintainable.
6. Besides, the fact that an adequate/alternative remedy available to the petitioners, who have admittedly resorted to the same, by filing a suit in respect of the declaration of their title, which is still pending adjudication in the Civil Court at Mardan cannot be lost sight of.
7. This writ petition is not only misconceived but is also frivolous and without any substance. The same is therefore dismissed in limine. A.A./2067/P Petition dismissed.