| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2539 2017 SLD 2539 2017 YLR 2447 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 08 of 2007, decision Dated: 21-5-2015. Hearing Date : 13-05-2015.
IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE
Mian Hameed ud Din Kasuri and Mian Mohammad Hanif for Petitioners. Khawar Ikram Bhatti, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for
Respondent No. 1. Sameer Ejaz for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 6. Ch. Mohamamd Jahangir Wahla for
Respondent No. 3. Baleegh uz Za
Writ Petition No. 08 of 2007, decision Dated: 21-5-2015. Hearing Date : 13-05-2015.
IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE
Mian Hameed ud Din Kasuri and Mian Mohammad Hanif for Petitioners. Khawar Ikram Bhatti, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for
Respondent No. 1. Sameer Ejaz for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 6. Ch. Mohamamd Jahangir Wahla for
Respondent No. 3. Baleegh uz Za
M. ASLAM THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHERS
VS
MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 5 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)--- ----S. 8---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Second review petition before Board of Revenue---Maintainability---Res judicata---Principle of---Applicability---Scope---No express prohibition existed in the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 for second review petition---Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 did not expressly or impliedly exclude general principle of res judicata and rule of finality of ---Second review petition after decision of first one on its merits could not be competently instituted---Once such power had been exhausted second review was not competent---No provision existed to file second review petition before Board of Revenue whereby first review petition was rejected and order had become final between the parties---Order passed on first review petition had attained finality as same was not challenged before any other forum---Order passed in second review petition was without any authority, in excess of jurisdiction having no legal effect which was set aside---Second review petition on the same subject was not maintainable which would lead to an un-ending cycle of litigation---Such power was not available to any successor in the Board to adjudge validity of order passed in first review petition---Only single review was available under S. 8 of Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957---Impugned order had no legal sanction as Board of Revenue was not competent to decide against the statutory provision of law---Member in Board of Revenue was not competent to enjoy the powers to exercise a suo motu review jurisdiction---Petitions seeking second or subsequent review on already decided matters in first review should be deemed to have become redundant---High Court directed that Board of Revenue would declare all such pending petitions for "second or subsequent review" as redundant and unauthorized forthwith---Decision arrived at by the Full Board, providing a remedy of second review in exceptional circumstances, having no legal sanction, was set aside by the High Court---Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly. Muhammad Shafi v. The Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue and 2…
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