Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN versus MEMBER, REVENUE BOARD, AJ&K, MUZAFFARABAD

Sections 44, 161 and 172 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), the jurisdiction of the section 44 writ petition revenue record, in the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, after the 6 kanal and 18 marla recorded in the matter of fact. was done. The Tehsildar changed the title of the petitioner, recording the possession of the respondents to the extent of 1 kanal and 8 Marla on the basis of the buyer's Bandobasti, and upon filing the appeal from the applicants in front of the collector, the Collector asked the Revenue Assistant. Disapproved for spot inspection and report. After submitting the case report, the collector dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners, stating that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to correct the Revenue Record and that only the Civil Court is capable of correcting the Revenue Record. , Which was finalized before the Commissioner. At the same time, the Revenue Board, filed by the petitioners, was rejected on the sole ground, declaring that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to correct the Revenue Record which the applicants had already finalized in their writ petition. Had asked her to declare all the Revenue Courts illegal in this regard, with no jurisdiction and liability to keep them separate under the provisions of the West Section 161 of the Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 , When this order was made by an Assistant Collector of any rank, then the Collector's appeal would lie. In the present case, an appeal was filed before the collector against the illegal order passed by Nail Tehsildar, before any of the plaintiffs. top civil advocates from Pasni lawyer