P L D 1962 W (PLP)
NABI AHMAD‑Appellant Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. M. Khan Leghari, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | NABI AHMAD‑Appellant Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. M. Khan Leghari, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1962 W (PLP) (NABI AHMAD‑Appellant Versus ALI MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Disposal of land‑(Taluka Daddu) ‑ Disposal, after being included in "schedules", and being publicised‑Mandatory provision.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. 113 of 1960‑61, decided on 25th January 1962, District Daddu. Disposal of land‑(Taluka Daddu) ‑ Disposal, after being included in "schedules", and being publicised‑Mandatory provision. The Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, had on 7th January 1961, rejected Ali Muhammad respondent's appeal against the C. O. Sukkur Barrage's order setting aside that of the A. R. O. Barrage and directing that S. Nos. 338/2 of Deh Tagga, Taluka Daddu, may be included in the next Schedules and disposed of afresh. One of the candidates Ali Muhammad, had filed a revision petition from this order, which was dismissed in limine under Mr. S. M. Ikram, M. B. R's. order dated 7‑3‑1961. The present petition is a revision petition by Nabi Ahmed the other contestant from the same order of the Additional Commissioner. I have carefully gone through the Additional Commissioner's lucid order and also the grounds of revision. I find that the order is a very fair one. The land was disposed of by the A. R. O. in the year 1960‑61, without being included in schedules and publicised. This procedure was mandatory under instructions issued by the Board of Revenue in 1958. Since after compliance in regard to inclusion in Schedules and publication, disposal will be according to the Standing Orders, neither party can have any grievance against this appellate order. There is no merit in the revision, which is dismissed in limine. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.