Find a Lawyer

R.O.R. No.81 of 2005, decided on 12th June, 2007.

----S.7---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss.42 & 164---Allotment of Ihata under Kachi Abadi Scheme---Attestation of mutation---In pursuance of the order of the High Court, mutation pertaining to Ihata in dispute was sanctioned in favour of the respondent, who filed application for possession of said Ihata---Said application was referred before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), who forwarded said application to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) for necessary action according to law---Deputy District Officer (Revenue), instead of giving possession of said Ihata to respondent, submitted report to Executive District Officer (Revenue)---Said report was presented before the District Officer (Revenue) instead of Executive District Officer (Revenue), who, vide" his order, filed said application with direction to the respondent that he should obtain possession through civil court---Respondent filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer(Revenue) who vide order accepted said appeal---Validity---Impugned order though was lengthy and detailed, but it had stressed more on compassion than on substance of the law---Law did not go by compassion alone; it had to determine rights on the basis of law and rules---Case was remanded by Board of Revenue to the Executive District Officer to decide the case de novo after hearing the parties and in a dispassionate, impartial and rational manner within specified period. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi for Petitioners. Muhammad Irshad for Respondent.

This revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 5-1-2005 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar. 2. Briefly stated the facts of, this case are that Ihata No.117 measuring 2-kanals was allotted in favour of Muhammad Naseem under Katchi Abadi Scheme of Chak No.67/ML, Tehsil Mankera, District Bhakkar, Consequential Mutation No.71, dated 21-3-1989 was sanctioned in favour of the above said guarantee. Abdul Aziz etc., filed a declaratory suit before the Civil Judge Mankera against above said mutation. That suit was decreed in favour of Abdul Hameed etc. on 19-6-1996. Muhammad Naseem filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bhakkar which was accepted vide order, dated 15-9-1998. Later on Jehangir etc., filed Civil Revision No.1511 of 1998 in the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore was dismissed on 22-3-2002. The decree of the Civil Judge Mankera was implemented and mutation No.183, dated 2-7-1996 regarding change of ownership from Muhammad Naseem to Provincial Government was attested. Later on, in pursuance of the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Mutation No.273, dated 4-3-2003 pertaining to the above said Ihata was sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Naseem. Muhammad Naseem filed an application for possession of the said Ihata in pursuance of the orders passed by the District Judge Bhakkar and Honorable Lahore Court, Lahore, referred to above before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, who forwarded the said application to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Mankera for necessary action according to law. However, the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Mankera, instead of giving possession of the said Ihata to Muhammad Naseem submitted report, dated 28-8-2003 to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar. The said report as presented before the District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar instead of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, who vide his order, dated 5-9-2003 filed the said application with the direction to Muhammad Naseem to the effect that he should obtain possession through civil Court. Against that order Muhammad Naseem filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, who vide order, dated 5-1-2005 accepted the said appeal; hence, this revision petition. 3. During hearing of this revision petition, the parties were directed to submit their written arguments before this Court. The written argument submitted by the respondents are on the file. 4. Although the impugned order is lengthy and detailed, but it has emphasized more on compassion than on the substance of the law. The law does not go by compassion alone. It has to determine rights on the basis of law and rules. I, therefore, remand the case to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar to decide this case de novo after hearing the parties and in dispassionate, impartial and rational manner. The decision should be taken within three months of the receipt of this order and this Court should be kept informed about the progress. H.B.T./13/Rev. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.