Revision before Board of Revenue

2018 YLR 1276 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 7Mutation, attestation ofRevision before Board of RevenueLimitationSecond revision before Full Board of RevenueCompetencyDelay in seeking remedy before wrong forum, condonation ofAssistant Collector sanctioned inheritance mutation against which revision was filed before Settlement CommissionerSettlement Commissioner set aside the order of Assistant Collector with the direction to sanction fresh mutation

Appeal was filed before Board of Revenue against fresh mutation sanctioned by the Assistant Collector which was treated as revision

Board of Revenue dismissed the said revision and petitioner instituted civil suit which was also dismissed

Petitioner, after dismissal of suit filed second revision before Full Board of Revenue which was dismissed being time-barred

Validity

Ninety days period had been provided for filing revision petition before Board of Revenue

Petitioner chose wrong forum and after dismissal of suit filed second revision petition before Board of Revenue

If litigant spent time in pursuing a remedy under a mistaken advice, period spent by him would go waste and no consideration could be shown in such a situation

Any person aggrieved by an order made or a decree passed by Member Board of Revenue could apply to the Full Board of Revenue for revision of such order or decree

If Full Board of Revenue considered that there were sufficient reasons then said order or decree could be revised

Second revision before Board of Revenue was not competent

Revision was rightly dismissed by the Full Board of Revenue being time-barred

No illegality or irregularity had been committed by the Board of Revenue dismissing revision petition of the petitioner

Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 YLR 1276 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 7(3)Revision before Board of RevenueLimitation

Ninety days period had been provided for filing revision petition before Board of Revenue.

2016 CLC 669 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 164Appointment of ChowkidarRevision before Board of RevenueScope

Present Chowkidar, being unable to perform his duties of Chowkidar due to ill health, petitioner and respondent submitted application for appointment of Chowkidar

Assistant Commissioner after observing codal formalities appointed respondent as Chowkidar

Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed

Validity

Appointment of Chowkidar, was made under instructions of Government and was not appointed under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Competency of Deputy Commissioner/DCO, and order of Deputy Commissioner being fiscal, Judicial Member of Board of Revenue, being not competent to adjudicate into the matter, revision petition was dismissed, being incompetent.

2014 CLC 696 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Ss. 164 & 172Revision before Board of RevenueRevenue record, updating ofCorrection of namePetitioner's name was "Fahmeez Akhter" but inadvertently name "Parveen Akhter" was incorporated in revenue record

Application for correction of name was rejected by Additional District Collector with a direction to petitioner to approach Civil Court for correction of her name

Validity

Field staff of revenue department had reported that "Parveen Akhtar" and "Fehmeez Akhtar" were the names of one lady and the only difference was that in revenue record her name was recorded as "Parveen Akhtar" while in school certificate her name was "Fehmeez Akhtar"

No separate lady with the name as "Parveen Akhtar" existed

"Parveen Akhtar" was non-existent but her name had been incorporated in revenue record

Respondent was real brother of petitioner who had also not denied that petitioner was not his sister and daughter of his parents

Revenue authorities were supposed to keep record updated under S.172 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Board of Revenue set aside the orders passed by the Courts below as the Lower Courts had wrongly referred petitioner to Civil Courts

Board of Revenue directed revenue authorities to correct the record by replacing correct name of petitioner

Revision was allowed in circumstances.