2006 PLP 1097 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Petitioner claimed that his land situated in the area of Okara Cantonment, was acquired and in lieu thereof, he was to be awarded cash compensation and transfer of the alternative land. According to him, terms/conditions regarding compensation to the oustees were determined vide letter, dated 14-10-1967 issued by the Government of West Pakistan and it was decided that they will be allotted alternative land in Old Colony Districts. He claimed himself to be sole heir of Mst. Premi wife of Sunder Das who died on 8-4-1969 and in this capacity, he filed an application before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was decided on 31-12-2002 with a direction that the petitioner should be compensated for the land acquired from his predecessor-in-?interest. Petitioner claimed to have submitted certified copy of the order dated 31-12-2002 before the District Revenue Authorities and D.O.(R), Sahiwal with a view to seek verification of the order, addressed a letter to the Board of Revenue but verification was declined by the Registrar, Board of Revenue, through his impugned order, dated 4-10-2005. It was contended that respondent No.2 could not refuse verification of order of the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, thus, his order may be declared void, illegal and of no legal consequence.

2. Having heard the case and perused the record, it became apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country. These canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others PLD 1964 SC 636 up to date, including the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Forest and others 1993 SCMR

618. In spite of this constitutional handicap it is obvious that certified copy of order of any Court issued with authentication as required by Article 87 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 carries a presumption of correctness, as per its Article 90 and no further verification thereof, is needed under law. Respondent No.2 neither had any business to certify any judicial order nor he was conferred any such power by the law applicable, thus, he was justified in refusing to verify the order, dated 31-12-2002 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. As a matter of fact D.O.(R) acted in vacuum while requiring verification from respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, the petitioner may out his own choice, produce any other certified copy of the order sought to be implemented.

3. For the reasons noted above, no direction in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is needed to be issued especially when any backing of any law. This petition, consequently, without misconceived, is accordingly disposed of, with the above directions. M.B.A./I 28/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.