Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2668 = 1962 PLD 88
West Pakistan
  Revision No. 195 of 1961-62, decided on 21st February 1962, District Muzaffargarh.  
Presented By: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue
Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.  

IMTIAZ ALI-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  Mst. MUKHTIAR BEGUM-Respondent

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)

Section: S. 15

Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 15-Review petition-Limitation -Review may be entertained after 90 days if good cause is shown.     ORDER   These are two Revision Applications No. 195 and 230 of 1961-62. The brief facts are as follows: -   The respondent Mukhtiar Begum was married to Bashir Ahmad in 1956 and her father-in-law gifted her the landed property in dispute at the time of her marriage. Mutations were duly sanctioned and entries made in the revenue records accordingly. Subsequently a son was born to Mukhtiar Begum and the case of the petitioner is that she gifted away the property which she had received at the time of her marriage to her newly born son. Mutations were again entered accordingly and sanctioned. After the lapse of the period laid down in section 15 of the Land Revenue Act Mst. Mukhtiar Begum applied for a review of these mutations and the ground urged by her was that she was not a party to them nor had she appeared before the Revenue Officer ; thus the entire proceedings were a fraud and a nullity. An enquiry was held by the Assistant Collector concerned and he made a report to the Collector in favour of a review of these mutations. The Collector passed a very laconic order which runs as follows: -   "As proposed at "A" report on both the mutations for review should be written so that necessary orders may be passed on it."   A revision was preferred to the learned Additional Commissioner who after going into the facts came to the conclusion that the proper course for the petitioner was to wait till the decision on the two reopened mutations had been arrived at and then pursue the ordinary remedy of appeal or revision as the case may be. A second revision petition has been preferred against this order.   The grounds that have been taken up before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner are three. Firstly, that the application for a review should not have been entertained after a lapse of 90 days as laid down in proviso (b) to section 15 of the Land Revenue Act. This proviso, however, contains an important exception which is that the application may be entertained, if…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register