1986 PLP 129 (SCMR)
KHAN ASHFAQUE‑UR‑REHMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 129 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN ASHFAQUE‑UR‑REHMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 129 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 129 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 129 (SCMR) (KHAN ASHFAQUE‑UR‑REHMAN KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against order/judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 13‑2‑1980 passed in W.P. No. 4404 of 1978). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑State land‑‑Auction of Government land‑‑Confirmation of auction, after approval by Deputy Commissioner discretionary with Board of Revenue‑‑Member Board of Revenue refusing to confirm auction without hearing petitioner in whose name auction was approved‑‑No rule of natural justice, held, violated by Member Board of Revenue in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Haji Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th June, 1985. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 13‑2‑1980, dismissing his writ petition relating to the auction of certain Government land in petitioner's favour.
2. The auction took place on 5‑9‑1977 which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner. But subsequently, however, the Board of Revenue refused to confirm it. The petitioner challenged the order of the Board of Revenue through a review application against the same but it was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner then challenged the said orders through a Constitution petition which was rejected by the impugned judgment.
3. The only contention raised by the petitioner's counsel before us is that before refusing to confirm the auction in petitioner's favour he had not been heard by the Member Board of Revenue, which according to him violates the rule of natural justice.
4. We are not inclined to agree with this contention as it was the discretion of the Board of Revenue to confirm or refuse to confirm the auction, without hearing him. In this view of the matter the petition is dismissed. M. Y. H. Leave refused