| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 78 1958 SLD 78 1958 PLD 964 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1125 of 1957, decided on 26th June 1958
M. R. KAYANI, C.J. AND SHABIR AHMAD, J
Shamim Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. Fazl-i-Ghani for
Respondent No. 1 and Mahmud Ali Kasuri for
Respondent No. 2.
Writ Petition No. 1125 of 1957, decided on 26th June 1958
M. R. KAYANI, C.J. AND SHABIR AHMAD, J
Shamim Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. Fazl-i-Ghani for
Respondent No. 1 and Mahmud Ali Kasuri for
Respondent No. 2.
GHULAM MUHAMMAD
VS
A. K. MALIK, MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, and anothers
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)------ ----S. 8--Board's power of Review lies under this section and not under S. 15, Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)-Collectors' attaching more weight to district of origin and less to proprietary qualifications in Lambardari appointment-Not a valid ground for review. Held, that the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 purported to operate on the 14th October 1955 and was, therefore, applicable to actions instituted after that date. By the West Pakistan (Adaptation and Repeal of Laws) Act (XVI of 1957), cl. (a) of S. 6, Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887) was deleted, but no addition of the words "Board of Revenue" was made to it, with the result that the Board of Revenue does not now figure in section 6, Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887) and consequently, it is no longer included among the other classes of "revenue officers". Since under section 15 of that Act the power of review lies in a Revenue Officer, there is no longer any such power in the Board under the Land Revenue Act. The only power of review left is that conferred by section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957). [History of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) traced]. The power of review has been defined by the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) in section 8. 1t can be exercised only if : (1) there has been discovered new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the petitioner's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or (2) if there has been committed a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Collector's attaching more weight to the district of origin of refugee candidates for appointment to a Lambardari vacancy and less weight to the proprietary qualification does not fall within this definition. Review on that ground was, therefore, not competent. Jibendra Kishore's case P L D 1957 S C (Pak.) 9 and Colonial Sugar Refining Company v. Irving 1905 A C 369 considered. JUDGMENT KAYANI, C. J.-This writ petition questions the powers of the Board of Revenue to review its own order in the circumstances of…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492