1990 PLP 1964 (CLC)
RIASAT ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1964 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sajjad‑ul‑Hassan Member (Consolidation) |
| Parties | RIASAT ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1964 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1964 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Sajjad‑ul‑Hassan Member (Consolidation).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1964 (CLC) (RIASAT ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Anwar Ali for Petitioners.
- Ch. Subhan Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960), S. 13‑ Review‑‑Petitioners had neither pointed out any mistake, patent error or omission apparent on face of record which could materially affect order sought to be reviewed nor had brought on record any new material or evidence to justify review of order‑‑‑Issues raised in review petition had already been taken into consideration and adjudicated upon in the impugned order‑‑‑Fact showed that petitioners were satisfied with present formation of their wands‑‑‑There being no substance in review petition, same was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960), S. 13‑ Review‑‑Petitioners had neither pointed out any mistake, patent error or omission apparent on face of record which could materially affect order sought to be reviewed nor had brought on record any new material or evidence to justify review of order‑‑‑Issues raised in review petition had already been taken into consideration and adjudicated upon in the impugned order‑‑‑Fact showed that petitioners were satisfied with present formation of their wands‑‑‑There being no substance in review petition, same was dismissed. Mian Anwar Ali for Petitioners. Ch. Subhan Khan for Respondents. This is a review petition filed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 against the order dated 28th November, 1984 passed by my learned predecessor in ROR. No. 2348/84, entitled Riasat Ali etc. v. Dost Muhammad and others.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order and the grounds on which its review has been sought.
3. The counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any mistake, patent error or omission apparent on the face of the record which could materially affect the impugned order. No new material or evidence has been brought on record to justify review of the order passed by my learned predecessor. The issues raised in the review petition have already been taken into consideration and adjudicated upon in the impugned order. The petitioners have also sold some portion of land which they have received by virtue of amendments made by the lower Courts. That fact clearly shows that the petitioners are satisfied with the present formation of their wands.
4. In view of the reasons given above there is no substance in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./349/R Review petition dismissed.