Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLD 828 = 1992 CLC 1598
Board of Revenue, Punjab
R.O.R. No.2977 of 1986, decided oil 22nd April, 1991
Presented By: Before Hufeez ullah Ishaq
Iftikhar Hussain Khera on behalf of Ch. Mazhar Hussain for Petitioners. Fazal one of heirs of deceased
Respondent in person.

, Member (Revenue) MUHAMMAD ASHNAK and others---Petitioners

VERSUS

ZINDA         (deceased)         through         his         Legal Heirs---Respondent

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 163

West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (VII of 1967) ----S. 163---Review---Allotment of land to respondent duly reflected in Record of-Rights---Petitioners 1hercafter, had managed to show their ownership on part of land through connivance with Patwari---Collector after obtaining reports from Tchsildar and Assistant Commissioner,                   allowed             review    of mutation---Validity---Patwari or any other revenue officer was not authorised to take away order of allotment in Register RL.11---Proper course for petitioners would have been to prefer appeal ---Palwari having exceeded his authority in changing entry in Register RL.I1, permission to review mutation was correctly accorded by Collector. Iftikhar Hussain Khera on behalf of Ch. Mazhar Hussain for Petitioners. Fazal one of heirs of deceased Respondent in person. ORDER Zinda respondent applied to the District Collector that he was allotted 2 Kanals evacuee land in village Odhapur, Tehsil Bahawalnagar under Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme. That allotment remained intact till 1964-65. Subsequently, without any proper sanction, out of this land an area of I Kanal 14 Marlas was shown, in the ownership of one Bahadur, who sold it to one Sultan from whom it was purchased by the petitioners. The District Collector vide his order dated 18-8-1981 allowed the review of the Mutations Nos.457 and 590. The petitioners   challenged that order of the District Collector but failed. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The learned counsel for the petitioners in his written arguments submitted that it was necessary to hear tile petitioners before reviewing Mutation No.590 and that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalnagar's order granting permission to review was not a speaking order. It was incorrect that respondent had been confirmed Khasra No.12 (area 1 Kanal 14 Marlas) in Rectangle No.539/10 as it was (non-evacuee) Muslim ownership. According to the Record-of-Rights for the years…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register