AJK Board of Revenue Act, 1993

  1. S. 6  — See AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Ss. 42, 44. Abdul Rasheed and 4 others v. Member Board of Revenue, AJK, Muzaffarabad and 33 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 222
  2. Section 6(3) — Necessary party — Board of Revenue being a necessary party — Its non   -impleadment —  Writ — Effect of — It is evident from the record that Member Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on 25th April, 2001 — The order was challenged by way of writ petition in the High Court and only Member Board of Revenue was arrayed as party — Provisions of section 6(3) of the AJ&K Board of Revenue Act, 1993 provide that any order made or decree passed by a Member Board of Revenue would be deemed to be the order or decree of Board of Revenue — Board of Revenue being a necessary party not arrayed in writ — PLA refused. Zahid Mehmood Shah v. Azad Govt. & 14 others 2011 SCR 159 (A) 1996 SCR 161,  PLJ 2004 SC (AJ&K) 106, and 1992 SCR 190 rel.
  3. Section 6(3) — necessary party — non-impleadment of — Every order passed by a Member Board of Revenue shall be deemed to be an order of Board of Revenue — If such order is challenged then the Board of Revenue is a necessary party to be impleaded in the line of respondents — without arraying the Board of Revenue as party in the line of respondents the writ petition is not maintainable. Muhammad Malick v. Manzoor Hussain & 90 others 2015 SCR 259 (A) 1996 SCR 161, 2000 SCR 153, & 2013 SCR  222 ref. & rel.
  4. —section 6 (3)— Land Revenue Act, 1967— section 2 (23) and section 164— Board of Revenue— exercising revisional jurisdiction—second revision—suo moto powers—distinction of— u/s 6(3) the order passed by the Member shall be deemed to be the order of the Board—Held: the Member of the Board is not subordinate to the Full Board for the purpose of revisional jurisdiction— Revenue Officer mentioned in section 164 is not defined in Act 1993 rather it is defined in s. 2 (23) Act, 1967, as the Revenue Officer having the authority under this Act to discharge functions of Revenue Officer—Further held: Member Board of Revenue cannot be included in the definition of the Revenue Officer, therefore, exercising suo-moto power for correction of  order by the Member Board of Revenue was not permissible under the provisions of Act, 1993. Munawar Hussain v. Abdullah & another 2017 SCR 1512 (C)
  5. —sections 6 & 8—review against order/decree of Member or Full Board—under section 6(3) any order made or decree passed by a Member shall be the order or decree passed by Board—under section 8(3), the review of the order or decree passed by a Member shall lie to a Member and review of order or decree passed by Full Board shall only lie to Full Board— Muhammad Riasat v. Abdul Khaliq & 7 others  2020 SCR 137 (A)
  6. — sections 7(2) and a second revision before Board of Revenue—competency of— u/s 7(2) a person who is aggrieved by the order or decree passed by the Member Board of Revenue as may be specified in the rules framed u/s 9 may apply to the Board for revision of such order or decree — the proviso of sub-section (2) of section 7 has controlling effect—The jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to entertain the second revision where the order challenged in the revision before the Full Board of Revenue has been passed by the Member Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been specifically excluded. Held: the power of revision are only available against the subordinate Revenue Officer and a Member Board of Revenue cannot be termed as officer subordinate to the Board of Revenue. Munawar Hussain v. Abdullah & another 2017 SCR 1512 (A)
  7. S. 8 — Review of Orders by the Board — The review petitions filed under the Act are to be heard and disposed of by the Board and not by any of its Members. Kh. Ghulam Qadir and 5 others  v. Divisional Forest Officer Demarcation and 3 others 1996 SCR 161 (A)
  8. Section 8—review—grounds for—-under section 8, the review lies on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which was not in the knowledge of party or could not be produced by him at the time when decree was passed or order was made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record–the review powers can be exercised for any other sufficient cause. Muhammad Riasat v. Abdul Khaliq & 7 others 2020 SCR 137 (B).
  9. Review — There is no bar in the Act of 1993 that second review petition would not be entertainable. In the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 there is a special bar provided in the Rules itself that second review petition is not maintainable. The analogy of the Rules in absence of special bar cannot be applied to a case falling under the purview of the Board of Revenue Act of 1993. Fazal Hussain v. Wlidad Khan & 22 others 1996 SCR 271 (B)
  10. —Board of Revenue—exercise of suo-moto powers— suo-moto powers have not been mentioned in the Act, and held: it is command of the Constitution that no Court can exercise jurisdiction which is not conferred on it under the Constitution or any law. Munawar Hussain v. Abdullah & another 2017 SCR 1512 (D)
error: Content is protected !!