1987 PLP 831 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 831 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 831 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 831 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 831 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1987.
- M. Sultan Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑1‑1980 in Writ Petition No. 4719 of 1979) ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Limitation‑ Condonation of delay‑‑Rejection of petitioner's application for condonation of delay and dismissal of his time‑barred appeal‑‑Order upheld in revision/review‑‑High Court declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal refused because matter was well within competence of the Court whose order was upheld by Appellate Court and High Court had very properly declined to interfere. M. Sultan Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Limitation‑ Condonation of delay‑‑Rejection of petitioner's application for condonation of delay and dismissal of his time‑barred appeal‑‑Order upheld in revision/review‑‑High Court declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal refused because matter was well within competence of the Court whose order was upheld by Appellate Court and High Court had very properly declined to interfere. M. Sultan Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th February, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 27‑1‑1980 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioner against the order of the revenue authorities in consolidation proceedings.
2. On a remand made by the Board of Revenue the Collector effected certain changes in the consolidation scheme. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order of the Collector. The appeal was out of time by about two years. The petitioner moved an application for condonation of the delay. His main excuse was that he was ill and for that reason he could not lodge the appeal within time. The Additional Commissioner who was seized of the appeal did not find this explanation as satisfactory. He dismissed the application for condonation of delay and also the appeal on the ground that it was barred by time. The petitioner moved a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. A learned Member of the Board rejected the revision petition maintaining the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner filed a review application but without any success. He then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. That too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is not disputed that the appeal of the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner was filed when the limitation had expired. The Additional Commissioner rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay as satisfactory. It was a matter well within his competence. His order in this regard was upheld by the Board of Revenue. The High Court, therefore, very properly declined to interfere with the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner. We see no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M. I./G‑10/S Petition dismissed.