Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Review Application No. 76 of 1970, decided on 18th November, 1984.
---0. XLVII, r. 1 & S. 151--Review petition--Both State counsel and counsel for petitioners agreed regarding modification of order under review--Review application accepted to the extent that case be sent to subordinate Court for fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties.--[Review]. Qadir Balch sh for Petitioners. Najamuz Zaman, A.-A. G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1984.
--The facts are that proprietary rights in the land in dispute, were conferred on the petitioners, under the Ejected Tenant Scheme. However, the Board of Revenue, vide its order embodied in Memorandum No. 2639/67-2185/CL-III, dated 22-7-1967 allowed the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha to review the order granting the proprietary rights to them and cancel the same. In pursuance of this directive, the learned Commissioner by his order dated 19-9-1967, recalled the order dated 30-5-1966 under which proprietary rights in the land had been given to the petitioners. The validity of this order was called in question by them through writ petition No.1035/68. During the course of its hearing, the then learned Advocate-General, gave a concession that the case be remanded to the learned Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the Provincial Government's Policy letters dated 8-10-1960, and 20-7-1961. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the case sent back to the learned Commissioner for fresh decision. This order is sought to be recalled under the instant Review application. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. Both, the learned A.-A.G., and the learned counsel for the petitioners agree that the order under review be modified to this extent that instead of sending the case to the Commissioner, it may be remanded to the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, to decide it afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the respondents. 3. This review application is, therefore, accepted, to the extent that the case is sent to the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue for its fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Since it is fairly an old matter, it needs expeditious disposal and shall be decided within a period of six months. H.B.T. Case remanded.