1989 PLP 446 (CLC)
Mst. ALLAH RAKHI and anothers‑‑Petitioners Versus ISMAIL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 446 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Syed Sarfraz Hussain, Member (Consolidation) |
| Parties | Mst. ALLAH RAKHI and anothers‑‑Petitioners Versus ISMAIL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI .of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 446 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI .of 1960)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 446 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Syed Sarfraz Hussain, Member (Consolidation).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 446 (CLC) (Mst. ALLAH RAKHI and anothers‑‑Petitioners Versus ISMAIL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Subhan Khan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 16th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Additional Commissioner's remand order in appeal assailed on the ground that the appeal was time‑barred and condonation was allowed without any lawful authority and with certain definite instructions which tied hands of Collector to exercise his independent mind‑‑Impugned order to the extent of remanding case for fresh decision on merits was maintained by Board of Revenue with the direction that Collector would not be bound in any manner by the observations of Appellate Court and to decide the case on merits in the light of facts, exercising his own independent judgment. Rana Zulfiqar Ahmad for Respondnet.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Subhan Khan for Petitioners. Rana Zulfiqar Ahmad for Respondnet. Date of hearing: 16th August, 1988. This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 20‑7‑1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) Lahore whereby case was remanded to the Collector (Cons.).
2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the appeal of the respondent before the Collector (Cons.) was time‑barred by more than 19 years and it was rightly dismissed on that score. But the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), without any lawful authority condoned that inordinate delay and remanded the case to the Collector (Cons.) with certain definite instructions /observations. By that way the Additional Commissioner (Cons) has tied the hands of the Collector and he cannot exercise his independent mind to the facts of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that Khasra Vo.58/4/1 was previously owned and possessed by him but in consolidation operation the "Taraf" of this number was wrongly changed and he was deprived of his Dera. Since the confirmation order was void, therefore, bar of limitation will not run against that order. Hence the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has rightly remanded the case for fresh decision. No injustice was done to the petitioners and the impugned order calls for no interference.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have carefully perused the impugned order. The impugned order to the extent of remanding the case for fresh decision on merits by the A.D.C/Collector (Cons.) is maintained with the direction that he A will not be bound in any manner or to be dictated by the observations of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.). He shall decide the case on merits in the light of the facts and exercising his own independent judgment. With this observation the revision is disposed of. A.A./290/11 Order accordingly.