Find a Lawyer

HUKMI versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL II), BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE

Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Withdrawal Suit) Rules 1977 R4 (5) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Section 163 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Amendment Suit Decision Assistant Did not The commissioner was transferred to the collector who observed that he was not able to decide the case within a month's legal period and since he is the appellate authority, he forwarded the case to the Assistant Commissioner who pronounced the case. And approved an order to file an appeal against the tenant. Against the order of eviction, the Collector filed an amendment filed by the tenant by the Additional Commissioner; the second amendment filed by the tenant was rejected by the Member (Judicial), the Board of Revenue but by the tenant. The review was approved by the Member, Board of Revenue. The case was dropped on the basis that only the collector could hear the case filed by the defendant. Consequently, it was found that he had failed to decide the case within 30 days (legal period) as mentioned in R4 (5) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Withdrawal Suit) Rule 1977 and made his decision. Accordingly proceeded to send the case. The Assistant Commissioner had not raised any objection on the basis of clause 4 (5) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules 1977, either before the Assistant Commissioner when the case was returned or the Collector or his Even before the Additional Commissioner or Member, the Board of Revenue Revenue Authorities could not, therefore, make a decision on the jurisdiction or offer any finding that could be corrected in the review. law firms from Nawab Shah lawyer