Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
R .O.R . No.815, of 1985, decided on 9th July, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 7 & 10‑‑Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), Ss. 80 & 84‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164‑‑Revision‑‑Allotment of shop site‑‑Application by petitioner for allotment of Ihata was rejected on ground that he was not a shopkeeper‑‑Order of rejection was upheld in appeal‑‑Appellate Court's order not disclosing whether Ihata was available for allotment and was vacant or occupied by some one, held, was not a speaking order‑‑Such order of Appellate Court was set aside by Board of Revenue remanding case to Collector for fresh decision after going into merits.
Malik Talib Hussain for Petitioner.
This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Faisalabad dated 15‑1‑1985, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of AC/Collector Jhang dated 10‑10‑1984 vide which he had rejected the application of the petitioner for the allotment of shop site No.53 measuring 12 Marlas in Chak No.475/JB.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the allotment of the disputed shop site. The AC/Collector rejected the application on the ground that the father of the petitioner had already been allotted one kanal of residential site in the Chak on the same day (10‑10‑1984) and the petitioner not being a shopkeeper was not eligible for allotment of the shop site. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner .filed appeal but it was rejected. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the grounds of revision. He contended that the disputed shop Ihata was lying vacant and the field staff had recommended its allotment in favour of the petitioners on the ground that he was a shopkeeper. He contended that he had paid Pure Food Licence Fee to the District Council Jhang vide Receipt No.01489 dated 9‑3‑1985 and it was sufficient proof that the petitioner was shop‑keeper. He argued that none other had applied for the allotment of the Ihata. He argued that the impugned orders be set aside.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. The order of the Additional Commissioner is not a speaking order and it does not disclose whether the Ihata which was available for allotment and was vacant or occupied by any one. He has also not mentioned whether the petitioner owned any land and what were his sources of income if he was not a shopkeeper. The production of Licence under Pure Food Act and showing the renewal of the previous Licence in favour of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner was a shopkeeper and this point was to be verified while deciding the case when the field staff had also reported that the petitioner was a shopkeeper. The case is remanded to the AC/Collector‑for fresh decision after going into the merits. The impugned orders are set aside.
A.A./224/R Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer