1993 PLP 2330 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD INAYAT and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2330 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore. |
| Bench Members | Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD INAYAT and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2330 (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 1993 PLP 2330 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore. bench comprising: Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2330 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD INAYAT and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Riasat Ali for Petitioner.
- M.S. Baqer for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 164‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Order passed in revision by Member, Board of Revenue was challenged by petitioner by filing Constitutional petition‑‑‑With consent of parties case was remanded to decide afresh after allowing parties opportunity to raise all questions of law and facts available to them in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Riasat Ali for Petitioner. M.S. Baqer for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th April, 1993. This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 24‑4‑1976 of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab dismissing the revision of the petitioner and maintaining the order dated 12‑4‑1976 remanding the case to the learned CA./Collector, Sargodha for deciding it afresh in the light of the observation contained therein.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was allotted land under 15 years scheme which was cancelled on the application of respondent Bashir Hussain Shah on 21‑10‑1975 by the CA./Collector, Sargodha and on appeal by the present petitioner, the case was remanded by the Additional Commissioner on 26‑11‑1975, on the controversy whether the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of the land under provisions of 15 years scheme. After remand, two Khasra Nos. 22 and 23 of Sq. No.39 were cancelled from the name of the petitioner vide order dated 2‑3‑1976 by the Collector and the rest of the area was kept intact. One Muhammad Inayat filed an appeal against this order and the same was accepted by order dated 12‑4‑1976 and the case remanded for second time by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha and the relevant portion is hereunder:‑‑-- "In the circumstances, I remand this case again to the learned AC/Collector, Sargodha for giving a patient hearing to the parties and deciding the case afresh in the light o f die observations made above." 3.The petitioner filed revision petition which was rejected on 24‑4‑1976 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab which order is impugned in this writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and finally both the learned counsel agreed that the matter be decided afresh as directed by the order dated 12‑4‑1976 of the Additional Commissioner (C), Sargodha Division, Both the pares will be at liberty to raise all the questions of law and facts available to them in accordance with law. Resultantly, the present writ petition against order dated 24‑4‑1976 is dismissed subject to observations made above. However, there is too order as to costs. H.B:T./M‑998/L Order' accordingly.