| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 415 = 1990 CLC 43 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-61 of 1989, decided on 4th April, 1989,
Presented By: Before Wajiltuddin Ahnted and Mamoon Kazi, JJ
Partab Rai for Petitioner Nemo for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No.D-61 of 1989, decided on 4th April, 1989,
Presented By: Before Wajiltuddin Ahnted and Mamoon Kazi, JJ
Partab Rai for Petitioner Nemo for
Respondents.
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN--Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVT. OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF DEFENCEthrough Director General, Military Lands and Cantonments Department, Rawalpindi and another--Respondents
Law: Cantonment Act (II of 1924)
Section: 84 , 88 , 274 , 277 , 278 , 71
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section:
Cantonments Act (II of 1924)-- ---Ss.84, 88, 274, 277 & 278--Assessment of property--Revisional jurisdiction of Central Government under S.277--Finality of orders under S.278 is subject to revisional powers under 5.277. Section 277, Cantonments Act, 1924 postulates that revisional jurisdiction would be attracted only in respect of orders passed on appeal by the District Magistrate against the orders made by the Board. This is so as Schedule V does not contemplate any appellate order of the District Magistrate against the. Board, leading to the implication and inference that section 277, is a broader provision available in all cases where an order in appeal is passed by a District Magistrate against the orders of a Cantonment Board. Besides, section 277 is not restricted to Chapter XV only because amongst the various orders contemplated even under Section 274 none falls under Chapter XV. Further merely because the revisional provision in section 277 occurs where it does namely, in Chapter XV, is no reason to limit the application of that provision to such Chapter only. In this context, it is the language of the provision which has to be seen and that language is broad enough to include all appellate orders of a District Magistrate passed in relation to the orders of the Cantonment Board arising as of the first instance. As regards finality envisaged in section 88 of the Cantonments Act such finality has been clarified under section 278 of the Act meaning thereby that the same is subject to the revisional power under section 277 aforesaid--One of the basic rules of interpretation is that redundancy in legislation is to be avoided and only such interpretation is to be made as would be calculated to suppress the mischief and to advance the remedy. Besides, the various provisions in the statute are to be harmoniously construed so as to accord due effect to the intention of the legislature. On the touch-stone of all these principles the irresistible conclusion is that the revisional power under section 277 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, is a power of general application and is applicable in all cases where the original order is that of a Cantonment Board…