P L D 1961 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus AFSAR KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus AFSAR KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W (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 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, 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 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN‑Petitioner Versus AFSAR KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
- Haider Shah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Partition‑Party served through proclamation‑Ex parte order against such party justified. (b) Practice‑New point in revision‑Generally not to be allowed
Judgment & Decree
(a) Partition‑Party served through proclamation‑Ex parte order against such party justified. (b) Practice‑New point in revision‑Generally not to be allowed Malik Abdul Latif for Petitioner. Haider Shah for Respondent. In this partition case two main issues have been mentioned in the grounds put forward firstly, that Martial Law Regulation No. 64 stands in the way of partition proceedings; and secondly that proceedings were taken ex parte against the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of sections 113 and 20 of Land Revenue Act. The first point has been given up before me. As regards the second point I find from a perusal of the record that the petitioner intentionally evaded service and this fact was proved by a statement on solemn affirmation made by the process server. Substituted service was thereupon ordered by the Assistant Collector under the provisions of section 20 (3) of the Land Revenue Act and a proclamation was duly carried out in the estate. The petitioner still remained absent and in these circumstances the revenue officer was justified in proceeding ex parte against him. Another legal point though not mentioned! in the grounds has now been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and that is that the Collector did not apply his mind to the case and his order does not deal with all the issues that were raised before him. One of these issues related to certain areas which were not assessed to land revenue and therefore did not come under the definition of land as given in section 4 (20) of the Tenancy Act. This is a new point which is both factual and legal and in view of its importance should also have been raised before the learned Additional Commissioner. In any case as the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, I would not permit this issue to be raised as this late stage. As a result the revision proceedings stand dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed. THE END