1990 PLP 1952 (CLC)
Before Akhtar Said Member (Judicial ll) Versus RIAZ HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1952 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Said Member (Judicial ll) |
| Parties | Before Akhtar Said Member (Judicial ll) Versus RIAZ HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1952 (CLC)?
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 1990 PLP 1952 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Akhtar Said Member (Judicial ll).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1952 (CLC) (Before Akhtar Said Member (Judicial ll) Versus RIAZ HUSSAIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Saddique Awan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 161‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Transfer of case‑‑‑Petitioner seeking transfer of case, alleged that justice would not be done to him because he saw the other party sitting with the Presiding Officer of Court‑‑‑Board of Revenue without going into merits of the allegations, transferred case giving regard to maxim that justice should not only be done, but must also appear to have been done.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 161‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Transfer of case‑‑‑Petitioner seeking transfer of case, alleged that justice would not be done to him because he saw the other party sitting with the Presiding Officer of Court‑‑‑Board of Revenue without going into merits of the allegations, transferred case giving regard to maxim that justice should not only be done, but must also appear to have been done. Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Petitioner. Ghulam Saddique Awan for Respondents. This is an appeal filed against the order dated 23‑1‑1989 passed by the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan.
2. The petitioner has no faith in the Court of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue). He feels that `justice' will not be done to him because he has seen the other party sitting with the Presiding Order of the Court. Without going into the merits of these allegations, I hereby transfer the case to the Court 'A of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Multan, because as the old maxim I says, justice should not only be done but must also appear to have been done.
3. This case has been going on for a long time. It should be decided within a couple of months. The parties to appear before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan on 1‑8‑1989. H.B.T./342/R Case transferred.