1992 PLP 878 (CLC)
STATE‑‑‑Petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Fit RIGHT‑HOLDERS OF REVENUE ESTATE‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 878 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Hafeezullah Ishaq, Member (Consolidation) |
| Parties | STATE‑‑‑Petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Fit RIGHT‑HOLDERS OF REVENUE ESTATE‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 878 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 878 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Hafeezullah Ishaq, Member (Consolidation).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 878 (CLC) (STATE‑‑‑Petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Fit RIGHT‑HOLDERS OF REVENUE ESTATE‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑S.8‑‑‑Review of remand order‑‑‑All the right‑holders of revenue estate were neither heard nor given an opportunity of being heard before making remand order affecting their interest-‑Remand order was, thus defective and not sustainable in law‑‑During long course of time elapsing between remand order and date of hearing of review application, situation had changed by the compromise of opposing parties‑‑‑None of the right‑holders had raised objection to the acceptance of review application to nullify the earlier remand order‑‑‑Remand order was reviewed with the result that consolidation scheme as confirmed before remand order was restored.
- Syed Imdad Hussain Shah for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Order affecting interest of right‑holders‑‑Essentials‑‑Proviso of S. 13, West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, makes it mandatory to afford the affected right‑holders an opportunity of being heard before making any order affecting their interest‑‑‑Where all the right‑holders were neither heard‑nor given an opportunity of being heard, remand order passed affecting their rights being defective in law could not be sustained. (b) West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)‑‑‑
Judgment & Decree
3. A proclamation, informing all the right‑holders of the date of hearing. i.e. 14‑2‑1990, was made in the village. Syed Imdad Hussain Shah, Advocate, appeared on behalf of all the right‑holders on the date of hearing. He contended that all the right‑holders were agreeable to the restoration of the annulled consolidation scheme as the possessions had been changed during the last twenty years and fresh consolidation operation will create legal and other difficulties.
5. None appeared to oppose the foregoing contentions. 6. 1 have considered the arguments and perused the case record. It is apparent that the remand order dated 25‑9‑1969, annulling the consolidation scheme dated 23‑10‑1968 and directing fresh consolidation operations, was passed in seven revision petitions to which all the right‑holders of the village were not a party. It is mandatory under section 13 Proviso of the Ordinance, ibid, to afford the affected right‑holders an opportunity of being heard before making any order affecting their interest Since all the right‑holders of this revenue estate were neither heard nor given' an opportunity of being heard, therefore, the remand order is defective in law and cannot be sustained. During the long course of time elapsing between the remand order and the date of hearing, the situation on the ground has completely changed and the opposing parties in the revision petitions have compromised. Syed Zameer Hussain, one of the right‑holders and protagonist of fresh consolidation in the. village, submitted an affidavit that he had since arrived at a compromise with other right‑holders and therefore, had no objection to the annulled consolidation scheme.
7. In view of the above circumstances the remand order dated 25‑9‑1969 is reviewed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue, Punjab Act, 1957 and is set aside with the net result that the consolidation scheme confirmed on 23‑10‑1968 is restored. The following revision petitions shall also stand disposed of in terms of the compromise between the right‑holders:‑ (i) ROR No.1960/1968‑
69. Ashique Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain. (ii) ROR No.1961/1968‑
69. Haider Shah v. Munawar Hussain Shah (iii) ROR.No.2053/1968‑
69. Zakir Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain etc. (iv) ROR No.1963/1968‑
69. Saghir Hussain v. Afzal Hussain etc. (v) ROR No.1962/1968‑
69. Sufia Begum v. Mulazim Hussain etc. (vi) ROR No.2487/1968‑
69. Mst. Wazir Begum v: Afzal Hussain. (vii) ROR. No.1856/1968‑
69. Mulazim Hussain v. Haider Shah. etc. which means that the individual schemes as confirmed by the Consolidation Officer shall be revived. The Board of Revenue on the Settlement side shall also be moved to review its order dated 7‑7‑1982 directing revision of the record of rights of this revenue estate. AA./444/R Review accepted