P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)
ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent'
| Citation | P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑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: M. W. Abbasi, 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) (ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent'). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Ejected tenants scheme‑Allotment‑Person obtaining allotment . on false pretences‑Allotment cancelled and enhanced assessment imposed by Commissioner‑No interference in appeal. (b) Appeal‑Second appeal‑Tenable only on point of law.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 54 of 1958‑59, decided on 14th‑‑ December 1959, District Lyallpur. (a) Ejected tenants scheme‑Allotment‑Person obtaining allotment . on false pretences‑Allotment cancelled and enhanced assessment imposed by Commissioner‑No interference in appeal. (b) Appeal‑Second appeal‑Tenable only on point of law. This is a second appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Multan; dated 25‑11‑1958. A second appeal is tenable only on a point of law, but the learned Advocate for the petitioner has not urged any such point. He has only gone into facts and reopened them. But even on the basis of facts, the revision petition has no substance. It is admitted that petitioner Ali Muhammad held a fairly large tenancy comprising a number of Killas of Chak under the Tube Well lessees (sic). As such he was not eligible to get an allotment under the ejected tenants scheme and his allotment was rightly cancelled. It has also been urged that the learned Additional Commissioner has imposed a penalty for holding this allotment which should be remitted because the allotment was regularly made to him. I think the justification of the learned Additional Commissioner for taking this action was his finding that the petitioner had obtained this allotment on false pretences, Whatever the cause, he obtained a wrong allotment and the Additional Commissioner rightly imposed an enhanced assessment on him. In any case, the appeal deserves to be rejected because there is no point of law involved. The appeal is dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.