Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1120 2005 SLD 1120 2005 CLC 103
Board of Revenue, Sindh
Appeal No.SROA-36 of 2003, decision dated: 21st October, 2003.
MUHAMMAD QASIM LASHARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

IFTIKHAR AHMED

VS

ALI GOHAR MATARO and 18 others

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------Ss. 161,162(c) & 167 [as amended by Sindh Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance (XI of 1980), S.15]---West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R.4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.3 & 5--­Appeal---Maintainability---Delay, condonation of---Appeal against order of Executive District Officer (Revenue) which under S.162(c) of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was to be filed within ninety days from passing of impugned order, was filed after delay of nine months and twenty days---No formal application supported by affidavit, drawn-up and verified as envisaged by R.4 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 was filed by the appellant for condonation of said inordinate delay---Validity---Appeal was straightaway to be dismissed in limine as envisaged in S.3 of Limitation Act, 1908---Court had no jurisdiction to extend time without good reason or caprice and delay could not be condoned impliedly---Appeal otherwise was not maintainable, firstly; because appellant being neither the grantee nor the legal heir of ex­grantee had absolutely no locus standi to file appeal and seek restoration of cancelled grant; secondly, that powers-of-attorney executed by legal heirs of deceased unauthorized grantee of land in dispute in favour of appellant in respect of land in dispute, had no sanctity and would not create any legal right or interest of appellant over disputed land; thirdly, land in dispute was not available for regrant/restoration; fourthly, the Scheme for the safe of land to retiring/retired Government servants was no more in existence and fifthly; appellant had not challenged or shattered the eligibility of local grantees and also had not provided any illegality in impugned order---Appeal which was utterly devoid of any legal sanctity, totally misconceived and absolutely not maintainable being hopelessly time-barred, was dismissed. PLJ 1985 Lah. 124; PLD 1961 Kar. 656; PLD 1981 AJ&K 126; 1986 SCMR 1624 ref. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 3 & 5---Limitation---Word "shall" used in S.3 of Limitation Act, 1908 signified that if an appeal, application or revision was barred by time, it had to…
🔒
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