| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2405 2001 SLD 2405 2001 CLC 636 |
Board of Revenue, Punjab
R.O.A. No.61 and R.O.R. No. 814 of 1996, decision dated: 17-10-2000
SHAHZAD HASSAN PERVEZ, MEMBER (JUDICIALI)
Ch. Jahanzeb Wahla for Appellants (in R.O.A. No. 61 of 1996). Muhammad Mohsin for Petitioners (in R.O.R. No. 814 of 1996). Ch. Ismatullah for
Respondents (in R.O.R. No. 814 of 1996)
R.O.A. No.61 and R.O.R. No. 814 of 1996, decision dated: 17-10-2000
SHAHZAD HASSAN PERVEZ, MEMBER (JUDICIALI)
Ch. Jahanzeb Wahla for Appellants (in R.O.A. No. 61 of 1996). Muhammad Mohsin for Petitioners (in R.O.R. No. 814 of 1996). Ch. Ismatullah for
Respondents (in R.O.R. No. 814 of 1996)
MASETAY KHAN through Legal Heirs
VS
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA alias GULLAN and others
Law:
Section:
Fraud------- Fraud would vitiate the most solemn proceedings---Person appearing before a Court with unclean hands could not press into service legal technicalities to support his unworthy cause. 1989 SCMR 864 ref. ORDER Facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the petitioners are that State land measuring 25 Acres comprising Killa Nos. 10 and 11 of Square Nos. 19, 5 to 15 of Square Nos.20, 5 to 9, 12, 13/1, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19/1, 29/2, 20, 21/1, 21/3, 22, 23, 26 and 27 of Square No.25, situated in Chak No.40WB, Tehsil Vehari was allotted to Falak Sher son of Laktiu, Waryam son of Muttali under Chahi (Well Sinking) Scheme vide order of D.C./Collector, dated 23rd May, 1962. It was reported to D.C./Collector, Multan by A:C./Collector, Vehari that the allottee had defaulted in payment of rent from Rabi 1969 to Kharif 1970 whereupon notice was served on the allottees. Despite service of notice, the allottees did not appear before D.C./Collector on the date of hearing of the case when ex parte order, dated 8-11-1971 was passed by D.C./Collector and the lot was resumed in favour of the State. Falak Sher, etc. allottees of the subject land filed an appeal against order of D.C./Collector which was disposed of by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, dated 27-6-1978 with the following observation:-- "The main lacuna in the case is that the appellant has not been heard. He has claimed the possession of the land. Under the circumstances if he enjoys the possession even now he may be considered to pay the arrears within one month. In case he does not have the continuous possession of the land since 1961, the lot will stand cancelled automatically. With these observations I accept the appeal, set aside the order and remand the case to the Collector." 2. The learned counsel. Masetay Khan stated that he had submitted an application in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) for being impleaded as party in the proceedings of appeal. Neither any order on his application was passed nor any mention of his application was made in the order of Additional Commissioner. This order of Additional Commissioner was challenged by way of civil suit by him.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492