Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

SHAH MUHAMMAD versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB


Article 114 and 0 XLVI1, r 1 Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Sections 106 and 108 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Whether the revision petition had the potential to rectify the failure to compensate for the payment of installments Revenue authorities were the one to decide the question, the refusal to interfere with the constitutional jurisdiction

1985 C L C 2676

[Lahore]

Before Saad Saood Jan, J

SHAH MUHAMMAD--Petitioner

Versus

MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others--Respondents

Review Application No. 148/80 in Writ Petition No. 10356 of 1980, decided on 2nd November, 1980.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--

---S. 114--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r: 1--Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 106 & 108--Review application--Issuance of show-cause notice--Finding of fact of Courts below, held, could not be re-opened in Constitutional jurisdiction.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--

---S. 114 & O. XLVII, r. 1--Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 106 & 108--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Review application--Failure of lessee to pay instalments of lease money was capable of rectifications or not--Question, held, was one for Revenue Authorities to decide--Interference declined in Constitutional jurisdiction. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner.

ORDER

In this review application two points have been urged. First, it is submitted that prior to the cancellation of the lease no notice was served upon the petitioner. It is to be noticed that this point was also taken by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Both these authorities examined the record and held that a notice was in fact issued and served upon the petitioner. This being a finding of fact cannot be reopened in writ jurisdiction. Second, it is contended that the failure of the petitioner to pay instalments of the lease money was a breach capable of rectification, and as such the Collector could not cancel the lease on that account. Now, the question whether the failure to pay the instalments of lease money was capable of rectification or not was one for the revenue authorities to decide. Apparently they have taken the view that it, was not capable of rectification. I can find no basis for holding that the view taken by them is indefensible. 2. For the reasons stated above I dismiss this review application in limine. H.B.T. Review declined.

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.