 |
| 2025 clc 1807 |
محض عدم شرکت کی بنیاد پر تقسیمِ اراضی کا مقدمہ ری مانڈ نہیں ہو سکتا
پیرا 1: تعارف
پیرا 2: مقدمہ کے حقائق
پیرا 3: ری مانڈ کے بعد کی صورتحال
پیرا 4: تاخیر سے دائر اپیل
پیرا 5: قانونی حقوق کا سوال
پیرا 6: ری مانڈ کے اصول پر عدالتی موقف
پیرا 7: اضافی کمشنر کا فیصلہ
پیرا 8: حتمی فیصلہ
پیرا 9: قانونی اہمیت
نتیجہ
Must read judgement.
2025 CLC 1807
[Board of Revenue, Punjab]
Before Babar Aman Babar, Member (Judicial-I)
MUHAMMAD ALI and 2 others ...Appellants
Versus
HAQ NAWAZ and 5 others-Respondents
R.O.A. No. 60 of 2023, decided on 28th August, 2025,
Punjah Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1976)---
Ss. 135 & 164-Partition order(s), assailing of--Right(s) of co-sharerts), non-violation of---Remanding of partition matter-Propriety-Co-sharers (appellants) filed present appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue against the remand order passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Argument of the appellants was that Member Board of Revenue remanded the case to Revenue Officer with the direction to decide the matter afresh but the respondents did not appear before the Revenue Officer intentionally in post-remand proceedings as they were in possession of excess land than their entitlement-Stance taken by the respondents was that they were not in knowledge of the remanded partition proceedings as they were never summoned and heard before approving the Wandajaat---Validity Record transpired that the partition proceedings, in the present case, started almost 23 years ago fie. in the year 2002) and the Revenue Officer approved the Wandajaat the next year---The litigation against the said partition order went upto the level of Board of Revenue, however, in the year 2015, the case was remanded to the Revenue Officer directing the parties to appear before the Revenue Officer specifying a certain date ti.e. on 30.12.2015) Despite the said specific direction of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab the respondents did not appear before the Revenue Officer---Thus, respondents' stance that they were not in knowledge of the partition proceedings was not understandable---Moreover, the respondents preferred appeal against the post-remanded partition order after a delay of 107 days, for which no sufficient justification or reason had been given by them-Pertinently, the respondents could not pin point any rights which had been affected by the impugned partition proceedings Respondents could not cite any loss that may have accrued subsequent to, or in consequence of, the impugned partition proceedings-Merely claiming that the respondents did not participate in the partition proceedings was not a valid reason to remand the case to the Revenue Officer for decision afresh-In order to remand a case to lower courts infringement of any valid legal rights in must be be cited, which the respondents could not do Thus, the us, the Additional Det Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) rightly htly dismissed the appeal beal-Additional Com Commissioner (Revenue), remanded the case to Revenue Officer without any cogent reason---Member. Board of Revenue set-aside the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), along with partition order were upheld-Appeal, having legal force and merit, was accepted accordingly.
Ch. Saeed Ahmad for Appellants.
No comments:
Post a Comment