1985 PLP 2991 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI-Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2991 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI-Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2991 (CLC)?
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 1985 PLP 2991 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2991 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI-Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner.
- Malik Noor Muhammad Avian for Respondent No. 4.
- Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7--Ejected Tenants Scheme (1963)--Allotment of land under scheme--Cancellation of allotment of alternate land--Powers of Board of Revenue--Land allotted to petitioner under Ejected Tenants Scheme (1963) on basis of wrong report--Board of Revenue--On scrutiny of record found land in dispute not available for allotment being within prohibited Zone and Charagah reserved for Abadi Deh--Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers recalled earlier orders passed in favour of petitioner and directed that alternate land be given to petitioner--Board of Revenue, held, had power to correct mistake found in revenue record and order accordingly--Order of Board of Revenue upheld in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The land in question was allotted to the petitioners under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and they were even allowed to pay instalments towards grant of proprietary rights. Before the final instalment. was paid it came to the notice of the Board of Revenue that the allotment in favour of the petitioners was made on the basis of a wrong report as the land in question was not available for allotment under the Ejected Tenants Scheme as it was within the prohibited zone and a Charagah reserved for Abadi Deh. The Board of Revenue in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers recalled the earlier orders passed in favour of the petitioners and directed that the alternate land be given to the petitioners under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 4311 of 1982. The High Court found that petitioners were not heard. The petitioners were directed to approach Secretary Colonies. The Board of Revenue has now passed fresh orders on 9-6-1983 again holding that the land in question was not available for allotment under the Ejected Tenants Scheme.
2. The Board of Revenue on scrutiny of record found that this land was Charagah throughout; had been reserved for village Abadi and was located within the prohibited zone. The petitioners have not been able to show that this finding was against the record. Their only reliance is on a report of 1957 showing this land to be 'baqaya sarkar' but this report is obviously against the revenue record. It was this mistake that the Board of Revenue discovered and have tried to correct it. The Board had this power and the revenue record justified, in fact, necessitated the corrective measures. The petitioners can be granted alternate land and it has so been directed by the Board of Revenue.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the land is required for a school and has actually been allotted to the Education Department. He has stated that under the terms of the scheme itself the lease could be terminated at any stage without compensation if the land was required by the Government.
4. In view of the above considerations, the petitioners have no case. The writ petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Writ refused.