Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MOULA DAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
P L D 1962 W
P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 93
Before A. M. Khan Leghari, Member Board of Revenue West Pakistan
MOULA DAD‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Revision Petition No. 8 of 1961‑62, decided on 30th Decem ber 1961, District Daddu.
Remokal fine‑Proof of payment‑From available evidence when original record not traceable.
ORDER
I have discussed this case with the Assistant to Commis sioner. The applicant's case is that he had attached the original receipts with the application for regrant of the full rate grant which had been cancelled due to non‑payment of installments. Even if that file were to be traced, that would not help him, because the problem of proving that the amount of Rs. 183/8/‑ paid by him was in respect of the remokal fine and not for some other Government dues. The only way, in the absence of the receipt books, which under the rules are destroyed after 5 years, for the petitioner to prove this, would be to produce the bill of assessment of fine. As I have remarked in my order dated 29‑12‑1961, which will form part of this order, Government cannot expect illiterate rural masses to keep bills of assessments for over 16 years. The Assistant to Commissioner admits that it must have caused the petitioner over Rs. 200 in his efforts to prove that he had already paid the remokal fine. This coupled with the other circumstantial and documentary evidence on the record, leaves no doubt in my mind that Rs. 183/8/‑ paid by him under receipts No. 73 and 59, dated 25th and 26th June, 1945, were in respect of the remokal fine, of the identical amount. The payment must be accepted as in respect of this fine. If the Authorities have claims for other dues, which the record does not show that they have, they must pursue those separately. The Assistant to Commissioner states that a remokal fine of 1945, could not have remained in arrears for all these years, as such fines are shown as unrecovered with explanations, unless they are fully paid and it would be difficult for a fine like this to remain in arrears for 15 years.
In the result, therefore, I accept this revision and hold the remokal fine to have been already paid as found above.
K. M. A.
Petition accepted.