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.
Cases Nos.SROR-204, 205, 206 and 222 of 1987, decided on 10th November, 1987.
---S.164 [as amended by Sind Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance (XI of 1980)]--Revisional jurisdiction--Order passed by Additional Commissioner in suo motu revisional powers--Such order passed in revision under S.164 [as amended] cannot be called in question by a party affected by such order.
Ali Muhammad Abbasi for Appellants.
Habibullah G. Memon for Respondents.
These are four petitions of appeal against the one and same order dated 10-8-1987 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad whereby he in exercise of suo motu powers vested in him under section 164 of the Sand Land Revenue Act, 1967 in respect S.Nos.160 to 167, 159, 170, 172 and 175 of Deh Dhand Karampur Taluka Schwan and S.Nos.591, 592, 593, 595 to 600, 604, 605 of Deh Chuchh Taluka Sehwan and cancelled the entree from the names of claimants Ganda Khan and Kalu of Deh Dhand Karampur and entries of Deh Chachh from the name of claimant Moda and all subsequent entries from the names of purchasers and ordered that the record be corrected accordingly.
2. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the case papers. Since the above petitions have been filed against the one and same order of the learned Additional Commissioner; Hyderabad hence all these four appeals are disposed of by this single order.
3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Additional Commissioner har passed the orders in exercise of his suo motu powers vested in him under section 164 of Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967. According to proviso 2 to subsection (4) of section 164 of the Act ibid, as amended vide Sind Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 any order passed in revision under this section cannot be called in question on an application of the party affected by such order.
4. It is evident from the above amendment that the order passed in revision A under section 164 of the Act ibid, cannot be called in question. In the above cases since the learned Additional Commissioner has passed the orders in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction vested in him under section 164, the same cannot be called in question by virtue of the above amendment. Accordingly the petitions of appeal are not maintainble and are rejected as such.
A.A./298/R Petitions rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer