Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 51 1967 SLD 51 1967 PLD 314
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. K-34 of 1965, decision dated: 16th March 1967.(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 26th August 1964, in Writ Petition No. 472 of 1964).
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., FAZLEAKBAR, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALL, JJ
Jamal-ud-Din H. Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Yousuf Rafi, Attorney

MUHAMMAD AFZAL

VS

BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER Hyder Bakhsh, Attorney for . No. 1. No. 2: Ex parte.

Law:

Section:

(a) Sind Irrigation Act (VII of 1879), S. 91(iii) read with West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), Ss. 4 & 5-Board constituted under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957­Vested with powers of superintendence and control over revenue officers as regards administration of land, collection of land revenue, preparation of land records and "other matters relating thereto "­Canal administration-Distinct subject and field of activity from Land administration-Order of Collector under S. 91 (iii), Sind Irrigation Act, 1879-Cannot be interfered with by Board of Revenue. Member, Board of Revenue has no authority to interfere with an order under section 91 (iii) of the Sind Irrigation Act. No such power is given by that Act. The West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, by which the Board was set up, invests the Board with large powers of superintendence and control over Revenue Officers, but that is confined to administration of land, collection of land revenue, preparation of land records and "other matters relating thereto". Canal administration, although it operates on and in connection with land, is nevertheless a distinct subject and field of activity from the land administration. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Jurisdiction, question of-Act alleged to have been performed by tribunal without lawful authority-Mere fact that petitioner submitted to authority of tribunal in capacity of respondent-Neither confers jurisdiction on tribunal nor deprives petitioner of his right to challenge order under Art. 98. There had been an act performed, 'without lawful authority, to substantial prejudice of a person who was respondent in a case before a Board of Revenue. The order of the Board was challenged by that person by a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court refused to grant relief on the ground that the question of jurisdiction had not been raised below. The Supreme Court in appeal against the order of the High Court held that "if that were to be accepted as a good ground for denying to the subject the benefit of Article 98, actions in excess or perversion of public powers would gain enormous access of immunity. Like the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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