| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2009 2026 SLD 2009 = 2026 CLC 504 |
Board of Revenue, Punjab
R.O.Rs. Nos. 560 of 2022 and 2130 of 2024, decided on 17th June, 2025.
Presented By: Before Mehr Khalid Ahmad, Member/Secretary
Rao Tariq Aziz and Abdul Samad Ali for Petitioners (in R.O.R. No. 560 of 2022). Malikzada Hameed Ur Rehman for
Respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (in R.O.R. No. 560 of 2022). Mehr Zafar Iqbal for
Respondent No. 6 (in R.O.R. No. 560 of 2022). Muhammad Aslam Khan Nutkani for
Respondent No. 9 (in R.O.R. No. 560 of 2022). Abdul Samad Ali for Petitioners (in R.O.R. No. 2130 of 2024). Malikzada Hameed Ur Rehman for
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (in R.O.R. No. 2130 of 2024). Muhammad Aslam Tahir for
Respondents Nos. 5 to 10 (in R.O.R. No. 2130 of 2024).
R.O.Rs. Nos. 560 of 2022 and 2130 of 2024, decided on 17th June, 2025.
Presented By: Before Mehr Khalid Ahmad, Member/Secretary
Rao Tariq Aziz and Abdul Samad Ali for Petitioners (in R.O.R. No. 560 of 2022). Malikzada Hameed Ur Rehman for
Respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (in R.O.R. No. 560 of 2022). Mehr Zafar Iqbal for
Respondent No. 6 (in R.O.R. No. 560 of 2022). Muhammad Aslam Khan Nutkani for
Respondent No. 9 (in R.O.R. No. 560 of 2022). Abdul Samad Ali for Petitioners (in R.O.R. No. 2130 of 2024). Malikzada Hameed Ur Rehman for
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (in R.O.R. No. 2130 of 2024). Muhammad Aslam Tahir for
Respondents Nos. 5 to 10 (in R.O.R. No. 2130 of 2024).
Mst. KHALIDA BEGUM and others ---Petitioners
VERSUS
Mst. MANZOORAN MAI and others ---Respondents
Law: Thal Development Act, 1949
Section: XV,21(2)
Law: West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959
Section: 22
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: X,24A
(a) Thal Development Act (XV of 1949)--- ----S. 21(2)---Right of return, determination of---Correction of longstanding entries, sought---Revenue Authorities, powers of---On application for correction of record moved by the respondent, the Revenue Authorities successively passed orders against the petitioners qua an adjustment order having been passed in their favour under the provisions of the Thal Development Act ,1949 ( TDA )--Validity---Record manifested that the very first (impugned) order was passed without notice to the petitioners, thereby offending the settled principle of natural justice that no person shall be condemned unheard---Claim of respondent pertained to an TDA area other than the TDA land petitioners' lawful adjustment related to---By disturbing petitioners adjustment, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) travelled beyond pleadings and jurisdiction---The impugned order itself was beyond jurisdiction, as the Deputy Commissioner( being Notified Officer ) had not referred the matter to ADCR to determine right of return pertaining to land in Mauza where no land was available, yet its implementation illegally affected pure TDA land---The request of the respondent before ADCR was for correction of mutations but the ADCR did not consider the fact that he was not competent to correct long standing entries and particularly when the respondent father did not challenge said mutations during his lifetime nor was it established that the respondent was the sole lawful owner and competent to file the application for correction of record on behalf of all legal heirs---Revenue authorities should have taken their hands off from correcting the long-standing entries, especially those reflected in successive jama bandies---Both the Revenue fora were not competent to undo such longstanding entries at a belated stage in a summary manner---Member Board of Revenue set-aside the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities declaring the same to be without lawful authority, void ab- initio, of no legal effect; consequently, any action taken pursuant to the impugned orders in the revenue record stood annulled forthwith---Revenue Revisions…