Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AKRAMHonorable Justice Muhammad Saeed SheikhMuhammad Javid Kasuri,Ch. Iqbal Ahmad Khan
2005 C L C 1796
2005 C L C 1796
[Board of Revenue, Punjab]
Before Muhammad Saeed Sheikh, Member (Judicial-V)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others---Petitioners
Versus
MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others---Respondents
R.O.R. No. 1548 of 2001, decided on 12th September, 2003.
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
----S. 164---Revision petition---Transfer of case---Impugned order. passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) had been challenged alleging that petitioners were condemned unheard as, when impugned order was passed neither petitioners nor their counsel were present and that transfer application was pending before Senior Member, Board of Revenue when impugned order was announced by Executive District Officer---Petitioner had further alleged that vide impugned decision, case had been decided on technical. ground which went against spirit of decision of Supreme Court---Petitioner had prayed that impugned order be set aside and case be remanded to Executive District Officer (Revenue) for deciding afresh after hearing both parties---Counsel for respondents had conceded the request of petitioners---Request of petitioner was accepted, impugned order was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh on merits expeditiously after hearing both parties.
Muhammad Javid Kasuri for Petitioners.
Ch. Iqbal Ahmad Khan for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th September, 2003.
ORDER
Muhammad Anwar etc. have filed this revision petition under section 164 of West Pakistan. Land Revenue Act, 1967 against Muhammad Akram etc. respondents feeling aggrieved by an order dated 30-10-2001 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Kasur.
2. Counsel for the petitioners contended against brief impugned order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Kasur dated 30-10-2001 that:--
(i) The impugned order is violative of order passed by Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 11-10-2001 to the effect that final order will not be announced by Executive District Officer (Revenue) pending the transfer application. Further that the transfer application was pending before Senior Member, Board of Revenue when Executive District Officer (Revenue) announced on 30-10-2001; copy of order of Senior Member was presented before E.D.O. (Revenue) hence the orders or E.D.O. (Revenue) are not sustainable.
(ii) On 30-10-2001 when the impugned order was passed, petitioners nor their counsel were present hence petitioners were condemned unheard.
(iii) Vide impugned decision the case has been decided on technical ground which goes against the spirit of decision of Supreme Court.
3. It has been prayed that impugned order may be set aside and case may be remanded to Executive District Officer (Revenue) for deciding afresh after hearing both the parties.
4. Counsel for the respondents has very graciously conceded the request of counsel for petitioners that appeal should be decided on merit rather on technical ground; therefore, impugned order may be set aside.
5. In view of above, the request of counsel for the petitioners is accepted, the impugned order of E.D.O. (Revenue) Kasur, dated 30-10-2001 is set aside and the case is remanded to the E.D.O. (Revenue), Kasur for decision afresh on merits expeditiously after hearing both the parties. Parties are directed to appear before E.D.O. (Revenue), Kasur on 24-9-2003.
H.B.T./19/Rev. Order accordingly.