1994 PLP 552 (MLD)
HASSAN AMIR and others — Petitioners Versus COLLECTOR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 552 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HASSAN AMIR and others — Petitioners Versus COLLECTOR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 552 (MLD)?
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 1994 PLP 552 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 552 (MLD) (HASSAN AMIR and others — Petitioners Versus COLLECTOR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioners.
- Malik Ghulam Muhammad Awan for Respondents Nos.2 to 9.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.44, 161 & 164
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Mutation, challenge to
Constitutional petition, maintainability of
Appeal filed by petitioners against order of Revenue Authorities in respect of attestation of mutation, was dismissed by Appellate Court below as barred by time
Order passed in appeal, could have been challenged in revision under provisions of 5.164 of Act, 1967 but petitioners instead of adopting that course, had filed Constitutional petition
Petitioners having failed to avail efficacious alternate remedy of revision available to them, under the statute Constitutional petition was not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 30-3-1972 passed by the Revenue Officer, Mianwali, in pursuance whereof mutation of Partition No.3609, dated 29-9-1972 was attested by Assistant Collector First, Mianwali. Contention of the petitioners is that the order of partition has not been passed in accordance with law as the partition could not take place in pursuance of the bar contained under MLR 64 of 1959 read with MLR 115 of 1972 and therefore the mutation sanctioned by the Revenue authorities as well as the order of partition passed by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I, is illegal and without a lawful authority.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that both these orders were appealable and the first appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed as barred by time by the Collector, Bhakkar vide order' dated 10-5-1975. This order was also challengeable in revision but the petitioners instead of challenging the said order in the heirarchy provided under Land Revenue Act have filed the present writ petition which according to the learned counsel is liable to be dismissed in view of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the respondents and also the contentions raised in this writ petition. I find that the petitioners could have availed of remedy of revision under the provisions of Land Revenue Act after the dismissal of their appeal but instead of adopting that course they have filed this writ petition which is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan inasmuch as an efficacious alternate remedy was available to the petitioners. Secondly, as this writ petition aims at challenging the mutation anti partition proceedings relating to agricultural land conducted by the Revenue authorities, the same is liable to be dismissed as being incompetent. See Khuda Bakhsh v. Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and 3 others 1976 SCMR 26 and case of Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Shafi and 4 others 1991 SCMR
352. Resultant, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./H-52/L Petition dismissed.