1989 PLP 4482 (MLD)
ARSHAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE SIND and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4482 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Rahim Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | ARSHAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE SIND and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4482 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4482 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Rahim Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4482 (MLD) (ARSHAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE SIND and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Madadali Shah for Petitioner.
- Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
S.7--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Summary dismissal of revision- Senior Member, Board of Revenue, without applying mind to contention raised by petitioner before him, dismissed revision summarily without disclosing any reasons--Such summary dismissal of revision being arbitrary High Court declared the dismissal of revision as illegal and of no legal effect with the result that the revision petition filed by petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, which would be disposed of by him according to law.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J. The petitioner was granted land bearing Block Nos.25 to 27 28/1; 38 to 40 situated in Deh Ghairabad Sarkari No.1 Taluka Mirpur Sakro, District Thatta admeasuring 100-0 Acres under the Mechanised Farming Scheme on 18-2-1963. The above land was cancelled by respondent No.4 by order dated 6-7-1976 holding that the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of Mechanised Farming Scheme under which the land was allotted to him. This order, it is contended before us, was passed without service of any notice of the proceedings and without hearing him. The petitioner challenged the above order before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division in appeal but the same was dismissed on 30th September, 1980 on the ground that according to the evidence produced by the petitioner, the petitioner cultivated the land from 1974-75 and as such he failed to fulfil the conditions laid down under the Mechanised Farming Scheme. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the Senior Member, Board of Revenue on 22-2-1981 as follows:- HYDERABAD 22-2-1981 Mr. Arshad Hussain with counsel heard Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim counsel for the petitioner. Dismissed summarily Sd/- (ABDULLAH D. BALOCH) SENIOR MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE SIND HYDERABAD. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Senior Member, Board of Revenue is not a speaking order and does not disclose any reason for summary dismissal of revision petition filed by him. A reading of the above order will show that the Senior Member, Board of Revenue heard the learned counsel but he gave no reason for dismissing the petition summarily. We are accordingly inclined to hold that the summary dismissal of the revision of the petitioner m the above manner was arbitrary. The learned Member, Board of Revenue should have applied his mind to the contentions raised before him by the petitioner and should have decided the case by disclosing the reason for summary dismissal of the petition. The order dated 22-2-1981 passed by respondent No.2 is accordingly declared as illegal and of no legal effect. The result will be that the revision petition No.SRO R-336 of 1980-81 filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue which will be disposed of according to law after hearing the petitioner and allowing him opportunity to place his case before the Court. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T/A-625/K. Petition allowed/Order accordingly.