P L D 1959 W (PLP)
MUSHTAQ AHMED‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑ — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMED‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑ — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (MUSHTAQ AHMED‑ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8
Review‑--When competent‑Error of law not an error apparent on face of record.
Judgment & Decree
This is a review petition under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act of 1957 against the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue dated 20‑1‑1958, in a Lambardari case. The learned Member Board of Revenue, in disposing of the revision petition filed by Muhammad Shall, appointed him Lambardar in place of Mushtaq Ahmad who had been appointed Lambardar by the Collector and whose appointment had been upheld by the Commissioner in appeal, on the ground that the two lower Courts had wrongly decided the case under rule 17 (ii) instead of Rule 15 of Land Revenue Rules. A review application is sustainable only on two grounds:‑ (a) when some new and important matter has come to notice which, despite the exercise by the petitioner of due diligence, I was not known to him at the time when the order was passed, or (b) when there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner seems to rely on (b), pleading that the learned' M. B. R. has misinterpreted the law and that this misinterpretation) is apparent on the face of the record. Even if there was a misinterpretation or misapplication of the law, it could not be taken to mean a mistake or error on the face of the record, as held by the full Board in P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.)
64. The grounds set forth in the petition do not qualify for a review application under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act. The petition is dismissed. Inform parties accordingly. A.H. Petition dismissed.