1996 PLP 451 (CLC)
GHAUS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZIR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 451 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Imtiaz Masrur, Member (Judicial II) |
| Parties | GHAUS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZIR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 451 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 451 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Imtiaz Masrur, Member (Judicial II).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 451 (CLC) (GHAUS KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZIR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naveed Saeed Khan for Petitioner.
- Tahir Qureshi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 164‑‑‑Exchange of land‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑In settlement operations land measuring four Marlas which was in name of petitioner in‑ Revenue Record was given to respondent whereas equal area of land was withdrawn from name of respondent and was given to petitioner‑‑‑Such exchange of land was challenged by petitioner/appellant, in appeal, but his appeal was dismissed by Additional Commissioner/Appellate Court, mainly on ground of limitation; copy of exchange order was not attached and that proceedings regarding modification/exchange of land in dispute had been made in presence of parties‑‑ Order of Appellate Court below thus was based more on technical grounds than on merits‑‑‑Petitioner who had proved that land in dispute not only, was in his name in Jamabandi, but was also in his name in Misl‑e‑Haqiat, had claimed that he had put a lot of effort and energy in planting fruit trees on disputed land‑‑= Held, it could be more appropriate to decide case on merits rather than on mere technicalities‑‑‑Board of Revenue accepting revision, set aside order passed by Appellate Court below and remanded case to decide afresh on merits and according to law.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision petition against the order dated 21‑9‑1988 of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. The facts are that in Settlement operations in village Bara Manga, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot, Khasra No.3879 measuring 4 Marlas was withdrawn from Ghaus Khan petitioner and given to Nazir Khan respondent and in its place Khasra No.2328 measuring 4 Marlas was withdrawn from Nazir Khan respondent and given to Ghaus Khan, petitioner. The said modification was approved/confirmed by the A.C./Collector vide his order dated 6‑7‑1983. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, which was dismissed vide his order dated 21‑9‑198$. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the settlement operations in the village took place in the year 1977‑78, while the consolidation operation took place in 1987‑
88. He further stated that the disputed land measuring .4 Marlas in Khasra No.3879 was given to Ghaus Khan. The new number allotted was 3042. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that 4 Marlas had been taken away from the petitioner without any lawful authority. It has further been stated that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order on 7‑5‑1984 but he failed to get a copy of the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, stated that the Collector's order dated 6‑7‑1983 had not been challenged. Even in the revision petition Collector's order has not been challenged nor has a copy been attached. He further stated that the possession was with the respondent, and entries in the Mutation Register had also been made. He further stated that Ghaus Khan was present on 6‑7‑1983 when the Collector passed the order and, therefore, his appeal was badly time‑barred.
6. In his right of reply the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in Jamabandi for the year 1980‑81 the disputed land measuring 4 Marlas was in the name of the petitioner. In Misl‑e‑Haqiat Ishtimal 1987‑88 also this area was shown in the name of the petitioner.
7. I have given my careful thought to the arguments put forth by both sides.
8. The main grounds for rejection of the appeal in the impugned order were that the appeal was time‑barred, copy of tile impugned order had not been, attached and the conclusion of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) was that the proceedings regarding modification of the land in dispute had been made in the presence of the parties. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it was based more on technical grounds than on merit. The petitioner claims that he had put in lot of effort and energy in planting the fruit trees etc. It will be more appropriate to decide the case on merits rather than on mere technicalities. The order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala dated 21‑9‑1988 is, therefore, set aside, the revision petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the Collector for decision strictly on merit and according to law. H.B.T./36/R Order accordingly.