Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLD 1986 Rev. 25

ZAR GHAFFAR AND ANOTHER vs USMAN AND 2 OTHERS

CitationPLD 1986 Rev. 25
CourtSindh Revenue Board
Case No.Case No, S. Review 133 of 1976-77,
Date1977-11-14
Judge(s)Abdul Sami Qureshi
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' This is a review petition in respect of grant of land in Deh Abadmando, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan. ,

2. Abdul Ghaffar and Zar Ghaffar with their counsel Mr. Bhimraj, Usman and Muhammad Hassan with their counsel Mr, Habibullah were present on 8-11-1977. Munshi All Hassan Tapedar was also present with record. They were heard and the orders were reserved. The counsel for the parties have put in written arguments which have also been perused.

3. There is dispute over grant of Survey Nos. 200, 201, 196, 197 and 199 of Deh Abadmando, Taluka Tando Muhammad Khan, between the parties. The land has been granted to the respondents by the Reveaue Officer, Kotli Barrage, vide his order dated 21-12-1972. The petitioners preferred appeals, which was rejected by the then Member, Board of Revenue, Sind vide his orders dated 5- 11-1973. They preferred a review petition on 7-4-1974 but the same was dismissed by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 31-3-1977 on the ground of limitation. Now they have preferred the second review petition.

4. The counsel for the petitioners mainly contends that the order dated 5-11-1973 was passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Sind four months after hearing the arguments and it was a void order and as such the limitation was no bar against such an order. The order passed by my learned predecessor is however quite elaborate and the plea taken by the counsel has already been rejected by him. The provisions of law are quite clear on the subject. The delay in preferring a review petition under A sections 8 of the Board of Revenue Act can in no circumstances be condoned in view of the provisions of section 29 of the Limitation Act. There I no fresh ground for review and the review petition is, therefore, dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch