1968 PLP 507 (SCMR)
KHUDA BUX-Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 PLP 507 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHUDA BUX-Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 507 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 507 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 507 (SCMR) (KHUDA BUX-Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Naimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Hafeez Memon, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 27th November and 18th December 1967, in Second Appeal No. 174 of 1964), Sind Land Revenue Code (V of 1879), S. 62-Grant under section set aside by Member, Board of Revenue in revision-- Grievance that Member, Board of Revenue acted illegally in ignoring Standing Order No. 10-Held, Standing Order being "merely instructions for guidance" its non-observance "cannot be pronounced as without jurisdiction"-Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-Assistant Revenue Officer, Nawabshah, gave 13 acres and 33 ghuntas of land in Taluka Naushehro Feroze, to the petitioner Khuda Bux by way of a grant under section 62 of the Sind Land Revenue Code, but his order was set aside by the Member of the Board of Revenue in revision. Khuda Bux then filed a suit for a declaration that the said order of the Board of Revenue was illegal and without jurisdiction. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the Board from interfering with his possession. The said suit was dismissed and the decision of the trial Court was upheld till the second appellate Court. His application under clause 10 of the Letters Patent was also rejected. He now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. The learned Counsel has contended that the Member of the Board of Revenue acted illegally because while cancelling the petitioner's grant he totally ignored Standing Order No.
10. While dealing with a similar argument the learned Single Judge has pointed out that Standing Order being 'merely instructions for guidance' its non-observance 'cannot be pronounced as being without jurisdiction'. Furthermore, it may be observed that the respondent Mehr Muhammad, an ex-Army man, was working as a chowkidar and did not own any land. Hence, it cannot be said that he was a man of means. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, cannot be described as running counter to the instructions contained in the Standing Order. For the reasons stated above, we see no ground for interference and accordingly dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.