1994 PLP 893 (CLC)
MISRI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 893 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Mumtaz Beg Birlas, Member Judicial‑II |
| Parties | MISRI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R 115)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 893 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R 115)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 893 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Mumtaz Beg Birlas, Member Judicial‑II.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 893 (CLC) (MISRI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Altaf Hussain Shah for Petitioner, Akhtar Masood Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Para. 5 (7)‑‑‑Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, R.7(2)‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑‑Commissioner of Division and not Additional Commissioner, being competent to decide revision petition in ejectment cases, decision of Additional Commissioner passed in ejectment case, was without jurisdiction and was not maintainable. 1990 MLD 1912 ref.
Judgment & Decree
R.O.R. No. 52 of 1991 decided on 9th January, 1993. ‑‑‑‑Para. 5 (7)‑‑‑Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, R.7(2)‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑‑Commissioner of Division and not Additional Commissioner, being competent to decide revision petition in ejectment cases, decision of Additional Commissioner passed in ejectment case, was without jurisdiction and was not maintainable. 1990 MLD 1912 ref. Syed Altaf Hussain Shah for Petitioner, Akhtar Masood Khan for Respondent. This revision petition filed under para 5, sub‑para (7) of MLR 115, against order dated 17‑2‑1991 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division, whereby he rejected the revision petition of the petitioner and upheld order/decree dated 1‑12‑1990 passed by A.C./Collector, Chakwal, and that of A.C.I., Talagang dated 2‑7‑1990, was admitted vide order dated 30‑3‑1991 to consider the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. 2. 1 have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1990 MLD 1912 wherein the Honourable High Court has held that under rule 7(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 only the Commissioner of the Division is competent to decide the revision petition in ejectment cases. The counsel for the respondent has not denied the ruling but contended that on account of A technicalities of law respondent may not be denied his valuable rights. After considering the arguments, I am of the view that the decision of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) is without jurisdiction and is not maintainable under the law. The same is set aside and the case is remanded to the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, for deciding the matter afresh after hearing the parties. H.B.T./2/R Order accordingly.