Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLD 829 = 1992 CLC 1600
Board of Revenue, Punjab
R.O.R. No.1405 of 1987, decided on 26th February, 1991.
Presented By: Before Hafeezullah lshaq,
Muhammad lqbal Ghous for
Respondents.

Member (Revenue) MUHAMMAD ALI and ethers---Petitioners

VERSUS

USMAN GHANI and others---Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 42 , 104

  West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Mutation---Attestation---Fraud had inter alia been alleged against revenue officers who entered and attested  mutation  in  question  and  case  under Anti-Corruption  Law  was  registered  against them---Higher officers in revenue hierarchy, in such peculiar circumstances were duty bound to take cognizance of situation and take measures to rectify same, for they were, to fail in their duty if they did not take corrective measures when their lower revenue functionaries were alleged to be perpetrators of fraud played upon a right holder---Concerned revenue functionaries were to be "'brought to book and departmental action was to be taken against them if found guilty---Collector having failed to take corrective action to redress grievance of petitioners with regard to attestation of mutation, which was attested fraudulently, Additional Commissioner's action whereby he rectified same, was valid in accordance with law. West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 104---Revision---Limitation---Revision was found to be time-barred by sixteen (16) days according to initial calculations---Revision on re-calculation wits found to be, time-barred by two days---No application for condonation of delay having been tiled, revision was dismissed., as time barred. Petitioner No.1 in person. Muhammad lqbal Ghous for Respondents. ORDER The facts giving rise to this case according to the petitioners are that Usman Ghani respondent No.l entered into contract of sale of property with the petitioners. Mutation No.168 for 27 Kanals 11 Marlas and- Mutation No.169 for 45 Kanals were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for consideration amount of Rs.11,000 and 35,W) respectively. Later on, the respondents applied for the review of the said mutations on the basis of fraud but Settlement  officer/Collector  vide  his  order  dated 26-6-1986 declined to grant such permission. However, on a revision petition, the Additional Commissioner granted the permission for review of the said mutations on 1-2-1987 (AC-II while…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register