MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND Others vs ABDUL GHANI AND Other
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a Constitutional petition, which had challenged an order passed by a Member of the Board of Revenue under Section 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, concerning the revision of the record of rights. The petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue lacked the authority to direct such a revision due to the absence of necessary prerequisites and argued that the order was barred by the principles of waiver, estoppel, and laches. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding no justification to import the principles of waiver, estoppel, or laches into the exercise of powers under Section 40. The Court held that the revision of the record of rights is dependent on the merits and justification of each individual case. As the High Court had already determined that the Board's order followed a proper inquiry and was not arbitrary, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition.
- Can the principles of waiver, estoppel, and laches be imported into the exercise of powers under Section 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Is the revision of the record of rights under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, dependent upon the specific merits and justification of each individual case?
- Section 40, Punjab Land Revenue Act 1967
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from dismissal of a Constitutional petition in limine by the Lahore High Court on 23-1-1982. The challenge was to an order passed by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, under section 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 for revision of record of rights.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the legal and factual grounds which were pressed before the High Court at the time of hearing of the petition, namely, that section 40 did not permit the Board of Revenue to direct the revision of the records as certain prerequisites did not exist. When asked to elaborate, the learned counsel firstly, attempted to show that no notification which was necessary under the said provision was issued, but, could not stress the point when pointed out that this factual aspect was not pressed in the High Court. He then argued that the order of the Board of Revenue would be hit by principles of waiver, estoppel and laches. We do not find any justification for importing these principles. In so far as the exercise of the power under section 40 is concerned, the revision of the record of rights is relatable to the justification found in each case and that depends upon the merits thereof. In the present case on factual aspects, the learned Single Judge in the High Court, having examined the contentions put forward from the petitioners' side, held that the order was made after due inquiry at the spot and that it could not be considered as arbitrary. We do not find any justification for interference. This petition accordingly is dismissed.
3. S. Q.