2009 PLP 1820 (YLR)
AHMED SHER KHAN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1820 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Asghar Haider, J |
| Parties | AHMED SHER KHAN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1820 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1820 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Asghar Haider, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1820 (YLR) (AHMED SHER KHAN — Petitioner Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Abdullah Khan iazi for Petitioner.
- Shujaat Ali Khan for Respondent. No.1.
- Qureshi Muhammad Saeed Asadi for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
S.8
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Second review on the same subject, maintainability of
Petitioner was aggrieved of order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue wherein second review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed
In Section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 dealing with review, the word "A" was very significant and important and itself clearly signified a singular form and if read together with "the words `a review, clearly indicated that only one review was competent before the Board of Revenue
Had the intention of the legislature been otherwise, the word certainly would have been 'Reviews' and not "a review"
As only one review was competent before the Board of Revenue, which was duly filed by the petitioner, but was dismissed, a second review on the same subject, was not maintainable and same had rightly been so held by Member, Board of Revenue
Petition having no merits, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 7-4-2008 passed by the respondent No.1 wherein a second 'review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders passed by the revenue hierarchy are not in consonance with the legal requirements and in cases of gross illegality; there is no impediment with the Board of Revenue to adjudicate and decide the matter de novo to ward off such injustice.
3. The learned A.A-G. and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the moot point for adjudication in the present matter is as to whether there is any provision in the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 enabling it to exercise powers for a second review not. According to the learned counsel, only one review is permissible under section 8, the same was availed by the petitioner and it was dismissed and thereafter the second review petition on the same subject-matter is incompetent, consequently, the petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard.
5. The controversy in hand revolves and gravitates around licial interpretation of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957. For ready reference section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act is reproduced:-- "Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply to the Board for a review of judgment and the Board may, after giving notice to the parties affected thereby and after hearing them, pass such decree or order as the circumstances of the case require." The language couched in this section clearly adverts to a review in the manner "A Review". The word "A" is very significant and important and itself clearly signifies a singular form, thus, if read together with "the word a review it clearly indicates that only one review is competent before the Board of Revenue." Had the intention of the legislature been otherwise the words certainly would have been "Reviews" and not a review. As only one review is competent before the Board of Revenue, and it was duly filed by the petitioner earlier, but was dismissed on 16-5-2007, therefore, a second review on the same subject is not maintainable and was rightly so held by the respondent No.1. This petition thus has no merits and is dismissed. H.B.T./A-171/L Petition dismissed.