Pakistan Case Law← Search
2000 MLD 1281

Judicial-I MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 3 others vs THE STATE

Citation2000 MLD 1281
CourtBoard of Revenue
Case No.Petition No, 124 of 1996
Date2000-03-07
Judge(s)Shahzad Hassan Pervez
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' Mr. Raza Ali, learned Member (Colonies), disposed of six revision petitions preferred against order, dated 4th of September, 1994 of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore vide his order, dated 22nd of March, 1995. The petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioners in revision petition before him had unlawfully handed over possession of their respective tenancies to some other persons. It was held that the transaction was unrectifiable. The present review petition has been filed against this order of learned Member (Colonies) with delay of 11 months 12 days. An application under section 5 of Limitation Act has been appended whereby the plea that they were not heard and as such time cannot run against them has been cited as explanation for condonation of delay.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were sub-tenants of the original allottees and as such they had a right to be heard. Since they were not heard, a grave miscarriage of justice has been done by the impugned order.

3. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. By relinquishing their tenancies unlawfully and handing over the land to unauthorised persons, the petitioners in revision petition had lost heir entitlement to possess the tenancies. The learned Member, therefore, rightly dismissed the petitions. It is a settled preposition of law that an illicit cultivator has no right under the law and as such the learned Member was not obliged to either summon the present petitioners or to afford opportunity of hearing to them. As per law, he directed that Tawan should be imposed and recovered from unlawful occupants of the subject land. These observations are being made not to supplement the legal validity of the order of my learned predecessor but as a narration of facts.

4. No ingredients of section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957 is involved in the grounds of review petition. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine which is accordingly ordered.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search