| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1042 1992 SLD 1042 1992 CLC 2022 |
Board of Revenue, Punjab
R.O.R. No. 75 of 1988, decided on 7th August, 1991
HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER (REVENUE)
Abdus Sattar for Appellants. Muhammad Aslam Ramay for
Respondents
R.O.R. No. 75 of 1988, decided on 7th August, 1991
HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER (REVENUE)
Abdus Sattar for Appellants. Muhammad Aslam Ramay for
Respondents
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others
VS
MUHAMMAD DIN and others
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 162---Appeal---Forum---Appeal against order of Tehsildar in partition proceedings could only be heard and decided by Collector of the District--Appeal against such matter having been presented before Assistant Commissioner/Collector was thus, presented in wrong forum---Such appeal was subsequently dismissed by Deputy Commissioner/Collector on score of limitation---Partition proceedings having omitted to take into consideration portion of land acquired by Highway Department for construction of a mettled road, which could cause permanent loss to one of the parties required same to be decided on merits---Order of District Collector, thus, appeared to be harsh and had rightly been set aside by Additional Commissioner. 1986 MLD 2283; 1985 SCMR 1003; PLD 1973 Rev. 29; PLD 1973 Rev. 30; PLD 19% SC 8'59; PLD 1989 Lah. 322; PLD 1989 Lah. 384 and PLD 1989'Lah.478 ref. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 7, 14 & 17---Distribution of work by Board of Revenue between various Revenue Officers had sanctity of law behind it under Ss. 14 and 17, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act---Where Revenue Officer had proceeded with a business which had not been assigned to him, such proceedings or order would be unlawful, incompetent and without jurisdiction.. (c) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 7 & 17---Distribution of work by Board of Revenue between various Revenue Officers---Such distribution of work had sanctity of law behind it---Additional Commissioner's observations that Assistant Commissioner/Collector and District Collector had concurrent jurisdiction and that "it was just distribution of work by the Board of Revenue that appeal against order of Tehsildar regarding partition of Khata was to be heard only by the District Collector"---Such remarks by Additional Commissioner amounted to total ignorance and complete disregard of law and being violative of the hierarchy of Revenue Officers prescribed in S.7 read with S:17 of the Act amounted to insubordination---Additional Commissioner was called upon by Board of Revenue to show cause as to why he should not be reported…
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