1986 PLP 2305 (CLC)
AFZAL KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2305 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Sind |
| Bench Members | Amir Yusuf Ali Khan, Senior Member |
| Parties | AFZAL KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2305 (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 1986 PLP 2305 (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 2305 (CLC) (AFZAL KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Baig Mirza for Petitioner. Nadar All R.0's. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. ;614‑‑‑‑llevisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Restoration of grant on payment of remokal‑fine‑‑Validity of‑‑Grant having been rightly restored by Additional Commissioner, there, held. was no justification, for imposition of remokal‑fine for period such grant remained technically cancelled until same was restored by Revenue Officer in first .instance and by Additional Commissioner thereafter‑‑Order for restoration of grant was maintained while for imposition of remokal‑fine was set aside by Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑S. ;614‑‑‑‑llevisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Restoration of grant on payment of remokal‑fine‑‑Validity of‑‑Grant having been rightly restored by Additional Commissioner, there, held. was no justification, for imposition of remokal‑fine for period such grant remained technically cancelled until same was restored by Revenue Officer in first .instance and by Additional Commissioner thereafter‑‑Order for restoration of grant was maintained while for imposition of remokal‑fine was set aside by Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Anwar Baig Mirza for Petitioner. Nadar All R.0's. for Respondent. This is a revision petition filed against the order, dated 11‑‑10‑1984 of the learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he restored the grant in favour of the appellant subject to payment of remokal‑fine for the period the cultivation was raised unauthorisedly in respect of B.Nos. 1248 and 1249 area 32‑0 Acres of Deh Girari No. 3, Teluka Golarchi.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the representative of the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage. The grant has been rightly restored by the Additional Commissioner. Hyderabad. However, there is no justification for imposing remokal‑fine for the period, the grant remained technically cancelled until it was restored by the Revenue Officer in the first instance and later on by the Additional Commissioner.
3. The orders about restoration of grant in favour of the petitioner are maintained except those relating to imposition of remokal‑fine which are set aside. A . A . Order accordingly.