P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mushtaq Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Said Akbar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 16‑‑Revision Scope. Though section 16 of the Land Revenue Act does not fetter the discretion of the Board of Revenue to consider both questions of law and fact in revision petitions, the general practice is to confine consideration to questions of law only. Of course, there has been interference on question of fact wherever the decision of the officers below has been perverse.
Judgment & Decree
Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 16‑‑Revision Scope. Though section 16 of the Land Revenue Act does not fetter the discretion of the Board of Revenue to consider both questions of law and fact in revision petitions, the general practice is to confine consideration to questions of law only. Of course, there has been interference on question of fact wherever the decision of the officers below has been perverse. Mushtaq Ahmad for Petitioner. Said Akbar for Respondent. This revision petition has been filed by Muhammad Sadiq, who was passed over for the Lambardari of Patti Jai Ram, village Dahra Bakhshian, District Rawalpindi, both by the Collector and the learned Commissioner who preferred Ghulam Rasul, the respondent. The main issue raised is that the latter did not own land in the Patti to which the Lambardari relates. The report from the Deputy Commissioner is quit: clear that the respondent owns land in Patti Miana. A part of this Patti was included in the Lambardari of the former Lambardar, Nanak Chand, whose migration at the time of independence has led to this vacancy. The respondent owns land in Nanak Chand's share of this Patti and it was Nanak Chand who realised revenue demand from him. This contention, therefore, has no force. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to raise another issue; namely that the petitioner has a better claim on account of his services to the State. Though section 16 of the Land Revenue Act does not fetter the discretion of the Board of Revenue to consider both questions of law and fact in revision petitions, the general practice is to confine consideration to questions of law only. Of course, there has been interference on question of fact wherever the decision of the officers below has been perverse. In this particular case, on the contrary, I find myself in agree ment with the decision of the officers below and the revision stands rejected. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.