Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

CAPTAIN KHAIR-UD-DIN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE


The West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, Section 8 is not reviewable where relief is claimed under the North India Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), section 33 [PLD 1958 WP (Rev 39) Rail].
P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 46

Before A. M. Khan Leghari Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan

Captain KHAIR‑UD‑DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners

Versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Review No. 34 of 1960-61, decided on 24th October 1961, District Bahawalnagar.

West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8

-- Review‑Not competent where enactment under which relief claimed did not provide for Review‑Northern India Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873), S. 33‑[P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 39 rel.].

ORDER

This is a review petition against the appellate order dated 15 3‑1961, by Nasir Ahmad, M. B. R., whereby he had accepted the petitioner's revision to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed under section 33 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, from three times to twice the normal rates.

The preliminary question for adjudication is whether this review is competent in view of the rule laid down by Full Board in P L D 1958 W. P. (Rev.) 39. In that ruling my learned brothers I. U. Khan, R. A. Mahamadi and A K. Malik, M. B. Rs. were pleased to give the finding that the Board of Revenue can entertain revision petitions under section 5 (2) of the Board of Revenue Act 1957, only if there is a provision for revision in a particular Act under which the case had been decided and since the N. W. F. P. Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act of 1950, does not provide an aggrieved person with a right of revision, the Board of Revenue was held not to be competent to entertain a revision. The position in the present review under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, is entirely similar. The Canal and Drainage Act and Rules, as adapted by the former Bahawalpur State Government although they provide for appeals and revision, do not provide for reviews. I must, therefore, hold that no review lies.

However, even if I were to hold that a review did lie, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me that a case for a review is made out under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, since neither fresh evidence has been discovered, which was not available to the petitioners despite due diligence, nor is there any error apparent on the face of the record.

A. H.

Petition rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates contact from Piaro goth lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.