Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 285 of 1982, decided on 27th April, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 23‑1‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 5172 of 1981).

----Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.40‑Record‑of‑rights‑Revision‑of‑record of rights‑Held, relatable to justification found in each case and depends on merits thereof‑High Court, on examining contentions of petitioner, holding that revision was made after due enquiry at spot and that same could not be considered to be arbitrary‑No justification for interference with order of High Court.

Ch. Mahmud‑ul‑Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 27th April, 1982.

Leave to appeal has been sought from dismissal of a Constitutional petition in limine by the Lahore High Court on 23‑1‑1982. The challenge was to an order passed by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, under section 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 for revision of record of rights.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the legal and factual grounds which were pressed before the High Court at the time of hearing of the petition, namely, that section 40 did not permit the Board of Revenue to direct the revision of the records as certain prerequisites did not exist. When asked to elaborate, the learned counsel firstly, attempted to show that no notification which was necessary under the said provision was issued, but, could not stress the point when pointed out that this factual aspect was not pressed in the High Court. He then argued that the order of the Board of Revenue would be hit by principles of waiver, estoppel and laches. We do not find any justification for importing these principles. In so far as the exercise of the power under section 40 is concerned, the revision of the record of rights is relatable to the justification found in each case and that depends upon the merits thereof. In the present case on factual aspects, the learned Single Judge in the High Court, having examined the contentions put forward from the petitioners' side, held that the order was made after due inquiry at the spot and that it could not be considered as arbitrary. We do not find any justification for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed.

S. Q.

Leave refused

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.