Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MST. SHARIFAN VS Respondent: NIAZ MUHAMMAD ETC
P L D 1965 W
P L D 1965 W. P. (Rev.) 66
Before I. U. Khan, Member,, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Mst. SHARIFAN‑Petitioner
Versus
NIAZ MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Respondents
Revision No. 1445 of 1963‑64, decided on 25th June 1965.
Mutation-----
----‑(Inheritance)‑Appeal, held, time‑barred (more than nine months)‑Additional Commissioner in revision, on strength of "some" evidence remanding case for fresh decision as such "evidence" in opinion of Additional Commissioner, raised a "pre sumption"‑Additional Commissioner at same time admitting that there was a "dispute" regarding ease‑"Presumption", held, not justified when case itself was not established‑No justification for remand in circumstances of case.
Akhtar Ahmad for Petitioner.
Muhammad Akhtar for Respondents.
ORDER
This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 27th of March 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted and the case was remanded for further enquiry and fresh decision.
Briefly the facts of the case are that, on the death of one Rehmatullah, an inheritance mutation was sanctioned in favour of this widow, Mst. Nanki, and his daughter Sharifan Begum. Niaz Ahmad respondent, alleged to be a collateral, went‑in appeal to the Collector but it was rejected as time‑barred. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner and produce some evidence. The revision was accepted and the case was remanded for further decision. Hence this second revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the first instance, the appeal was time‑barred. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred me, to P L D 1964 W P (Rev.) 95. In that case, there was a delay of nearly three days. In this case the appeal was filed more than nine-months after the sanctioning of the mutation. Moreover, the evidence which was produced on the revisional side only raised a presumption according to the learned Additional Commissioner. It was, however, admitted that there was a dispute regarding the case. When the case itself was not established, a presumption was not justified.
In these circumstances, there was no justification for remand ing the case. I, therefore, accept the second revision, set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and direct that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector shall be implemented.
A. H. Order accordingly.