MUHAMMAD YAR vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another
This matter originated from a challenge to orders issued by the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), regarding the binding nature of recommendations made by the District Remount Officer upon the Collector. The petitioner contended that the Board of Revenue authorities erred in their legal interpretation and that the Member (Judicial) lacked the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the specific matter. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the High Court failed to adequately address these jurisdictional and procedural contentions when dismissing the initial writ petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the distribution of business among Members of the Board of Revenue pursuant to the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The Court determined that the question of jurisdiction regarding the allocation of business among Board Members was a substantial legal issue requiring consideration. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the same, and remanded the case to the High Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh, specifically addressing the jurisdictional questions raised by the petitioner.
- Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to distribute business among its members under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
- Is the High Court required to address jurisdictional challenges raised in a writ petition regarding the authority of a Member of the Board of Revenue?
- Section 6(1), West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--By C.P.L.A. No. 920 of 1985 orders of the learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and order of the learned Additional Commissioner, (Revenue) are challenged and inter alia, it is contended that the two authorities have wrongly held that the Collector is bound to accept the recommendations submitted by the District Remount Officer; that Mr. S.M. Naseem, Member, Board of Revenue properly adjudicated upon this point in his order and respondent No.2 Malik Zawwar Hussain, Member (Judicial) has not given any reasons that in what circumstances the decision of the learned Member (Colonies) was not correct; that. The learned Member (Judicial) of the Board had no jurisdiction to decide the question involved; and that these aspects of the case have not been gone into by the learned High Court Judge while dismissing the writ petition, and thus erred in law.
2. Learned counsel also filed copy of affidavit submitted by Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Chohan, Advocate who had appeared in the High Court and had raised the question whether Malik Zawwar Hussain, Member (Judicial) had the lawful authority to decide the case. He also filed copy of the order of the learned Member (Colonies).
3. On examining the question we find that the Board, under the relevant provision of law applicable, has Members to conduct the business in different fields vide subsection (1) of section 6 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 which reads as follows: "6. Conducting of Business.-- (1) Subject to the approval of the Government, the Board may distribute its business amongst its Members, and may, by rules, regulate the procedure of all proceedings before it."
As such the question of jurisdiction does arise in this case. Notices were already issued to the respondents. We convert the petition into appeal, allow it and remand the case to the High Court for decision afresh on the point raised by the learnedcounsel.