1986 PLP 2682 (CLC)
Syed SIKANDAR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2682 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Sind |
| Bench Members | Amir Yusuf Ali Khan, Senior Member |
| Parties | Syed SIKANDAR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII d 1967)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2682 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII d 1967)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2682 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Sind bench comprising: Amir Yusuf Ali Khan, Senior Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2682 (CLC) (Syed SIKANDAR SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Baig Mirza for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 164‑‑Land Grant Policy, para. 6‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Cancellation of grant due to infringement of conditions of grant‑Cancellation of grant by Revenue Officer, held, would not be proper where no notice for cancellation thereof, was served on affected person‑While cancelling grant Revenue Officer also failed to take into view reasons advanced by petitioner relating to seepage and salinity in soil for non‑cultivation thereof‑‑Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction restored grant to petitioner without penalty.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 164‑‑Land Grant Policy, para. 6‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Cancellation of grant due to infringement of conditions of grant‑Cancellation of grant by Revenue Officer, held, would not be proper where no notice for cancellation thereof, was served on affected person‑While cancelling grant Revenue Officer also failed to take into view reasons advanced by petitioner relating to seepage and salinity in soil for non‑cultivation thereof‑‑Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction restored grant to petitioner without penalty. Anwar Baig Mirza for Petitioner. This is a revision petition which was filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, dated 11‑3‑1978 whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner for restoration of his grant in respect of S. Nos. 48 and 49 area 32‑0 Acres of Deh Girari No., 1, Taluka Golarchi which was cancelled by the Revenue Officer, kotri Barrage, Hyderabad due to infringement of condition of the grant.
2. This revision petition was rejected by the then Member (Relief s Settlement), Board of Revenue, Sind vide order, dated 14‑6‑1978. The petitioner filed Constitutional Petition C.P.C. No. 1186 of 197& before the honourable High Court of Sind against the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The Honourable High Court, vide its judgment, dated 10‑4‑1984 has remanded the case back to the Board of Revenue, Sind for fresh decision.
3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the representative of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad. The counsel has contended that the grant of the petitioner was cancelled without service of notice upon him as such the order of Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad was not proper. The counsel has also contended that the disputed land is still in his possession and is very much available for restoration.
4. I have confirmed from the representative of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad that the land in dispute has not been disposed of to any other person by the barrage authorities. Further the cancellation of this land by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad was not proper as no notice was served upon the petitioner. The representative of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad who is present with record has also failed to produce the copy of notice served upon the petitioner. The reasons advanced by the petitioner for non‑cultivation which were seepage and salinity in soil were not taken into view as has been observed by the Honourable High Court in their judgment,
5. In view of the above facts, I here the grant in favour of the petitioner who should make full payment towards its price without payment of penalty within 3 months from today. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. A. A., Revision accepted.