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.
Revision No.' 52 of 1959‑60, decided on 25th July 1960, District Rawalpindi
Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 16‑‑Revision Scope.
Though section 16 of the Land Revenue Act does not fetter the discretion of the Board of Revenue to consider both questions of law and fact in revision petitions, the general practice is to confine consideration to questions of law only. Of course, there has been interference on question of fact wherever the decision of the officers below has been perverse.
Mushtaq Ahmad for Petitioner.
Said Akbar for Respondent.
This revision petition has been filed by Muhammad Sadiq, who was passed over for the Lambardari of Patti Jai Ram, village Dahra Bakhshian, District Rawalpindi, both by the Collector and the learned Commissioner who preferred Ghulam Rasul, the respondent. The main issue raised is that the latter did not own land in the Patti to which the Lambardari relates. The report from the Deputy Commissioner is quit: clear that the respondent owns land in Patti Miana. A part of this Patti was included in the Lambardari of the former Lambardar, Nanak Chand, whose migration at the time of independence has led to this vacancy. The respondent owns land in Nanak Chand's share of this Patti and it was Nanak Chand who realised revenue demand from him. This contention, therefore, has no force.
The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to raise another issue; namely that the petitioner has a better claim on account of his services to the State. Though section 16 of the Land Revenue Act does not fetter the discretion of the Board of Revenue to consider both questions of law and fact in revision petitions, the general practice is to confine consideration to questions of law only. Of course, there has been interference on question of fact wherever the decision of the officers below has been perverse. In this particular case, on the contrary, I find myself in agree ment with the decision of the officers below and the revision stands rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer