Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 887 2018 SLD 887 2018 YLR 856
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 66-B of 2011, decision & hearing Dated: 14-11-2017.
ABDUL SHAKOOR, JUSTICE
Salah-ud-Din Khan Gandapur for Petitioner. Rustam Khan Kundi and H. M. Hanif for
Respondents.

SAHIB SHAH

VS

MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Partition of land by the revenue officer---Member Board of Revenue decided two revision petitions having different facts through verbatim orders---Validity---Both the orders passed by the Member Board of Revenue were same and did not reflect any difference even of a word---Member Board of Revenue had committed illegality while passing the impugned orders---If the impugned order had not been passed fairly, justly and rightly in accordance with law, and no remedy for challenging such order was available, Constitutional petition was maintainable---Petitioner had no alternate remedy to assail the impugned order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue---Impugned order was set aside and cases were remanded to Member, Board of Revenue for decision afresh---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Province of Punjab through Collector Sargodah v. Muhammad Bakhs 2012 SCMR 664; Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Ahmad and 2 others 2008 SCMR 4521; Province of Punjab through Collector District Khoshab, Jauharabad and others 2007 SCMR 554; Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Ghani and 3 others 2000 SCMR 1083 and Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1978 SC 447 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ABDUL SHAKOOR, J--- Through this common judgment I intend to dispose of the instant Writ Petition No. 66-B/2011 along with connected Writ Petition No. 374-B/ 2011 titled Sahib Shah v. Member Board of Revenue etc: though question of facts, despite the same parties, in both the petitions were not the same, however, the decisions in both the cases are verbatim and same. 2. Gist of relevant facts of the instant petition are that respondent No. 5 submitted an application for partition of Khata Nos. 283 to 285, fully detailed in the partition application, before the Assistant Collector Lakki against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and others. The learned trial court summoned the respondents and after concluding the evidence, Girdawar Circle was appointed as Ahl-e-Commission to prepare the mode of partition, who prepared the same which was confirmed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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