Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAWAB VS Respondent: THE STATE and others
Court Name: Board of Revenue Judge(s): Tariq Yousaf Title: NAWAB vs THE STATE and others Case No.: ROR No,264 of 2004 Date of Judgment:2004-12-07 Reported As: 2005 CLC 534 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' Present petition has been filed under section 8 of Board of Revenue, Punjab, Act, 1957 against order, dated 14-1-2004 of Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab. 2. Petitioner argues that order, dated 14-1-2004 cancelled ex parte order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), dated 5-6-2003. Opportunity of being heard was not provided to the petitioner. Under T.D.A. Act, 1949 Executive District Officer (Revenue) is competent to remand the case to a lower judicial forum. 3. Argument on behalf of respondent is that impugned order has been passed lawfully. 4. Main point in this case is that Executive District Officer (Revenue), Layyah remanded the case to lower Court although no power of remand vested with him. Power to remand vests only with Board of Revenue, Punjab. Subordinate Revenue Judiciary has no power of remand. Thal Development Authority Act does not take precedence over Land Revenue Act, 1967 which is the prime law. Order of Executive District Officer (Revenue) being legally deficient was set aside vide impugned order and the case was remanded to Executive District Officer (Revenue) by Member (Colonies) for fresh decision on merit within 60 days. I do not find any fault with this order. 5. I therefore, dismiss this review petition and uphold/restore the impugned order.
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.