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. 41 of 1960‑61, decided on 31st August 1961, District Lyallpur.
‑Appeal treated by Single Member of Board suo motu as revision ‑Revisional powers of Board, "administrative and controlling" in character-- Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 13.
-- Board suo motu may add party to revision proceedings (Lambardari case).
proviso‑Revision petition to Full Board from order of Single Member barred.
Shamirn Hussain Qadri for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ayub for Respondent.
R. O. R. Nos. 41 and 42 of 1960‑61, (Ghulam Muhammad v. Sardar Khan son of Miran Bux) and (Sardar Khan son of Ranjha v. Sardar Khan son of Miran Bux) relate to the same Lambardari appointment of Chak No. 386, District Lyallpur and will be disposed of by a single order. Ghulam Muhammad was appointed Lambardar by the Collector. Sardar Khan son of Ranjha and Sardar Khan son of Miran Bux went in appeal to the Commissioner who set aside the appointment of Ghulam Muhammad and appointed Sardar Khan son of Ranjha. Ghulam Muhammad came up in second appeal before the Board of Revenue where the learned Single Member in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction also summoned Sardar Khan son of Miran Bux and impleaded him as a party. After consideration of the merits of the various candidates the learned Member appointed Sardar Khan son of Miran Bux. As a matter of fact Ghulam Muhammad bad filed a second appeal but the learned Member observed that no law point was involved and that he would for that reason treat it as a revision petition and dealt with it as such.
The learned counsel, for Ghulam Muhammad, has argued with great vehemence that Single Member cannot treat an appeal as a revision petition suo motu as otherwise a remedy open to a party i.e., to go up in revision to the Full Board is shut out. This it is contended, cannot be the intention of the law. Thus an order passed by a Member treating an appeal as a revision was in excess of his jurisdiction and should be set aside.
We are not prepared to accept this contention. The powers of revision exercised by the Board of Revenue are really administrative and controlling in character and it is for this reason that the law does not lay down the same restrictions in the exercise of these powers as in case of second appeals preferred to the Board. In our considered opinion there is no bar in the way of treating an appeal as a revision and the simple reason is that a Member can take action under the Act even suo motu. In this particular case, however, since the parties argued the case before the Member, it may be further presumed that they consented to the appeal being treated as a revision.
As far as the petition of Sardar Khan son of Ranjha is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel is that Sardar Khan son of Miran Bux could not be made a party. This contention is without any legal force. As already mentioned above, the Board of Revenue has considerable powers in revision and the Single Member was legally empowered to summon a candidate and consider his case.
2. We would further hold that the revision petitions are barred by the proviso to section 7 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, which ousts the jurisdiction of the Full Board in a case decided in revision by a single Member.
As a result of the above discussion, the petitions are dismissed.
A. H.
< [if supportLineBreakNewLine]>
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer