Summary: (a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss.53 & 162---Correction of entries---Factual controversies---Jurisdiction---Civil Court or Revenue Authorities---Limitation---The powers of attorney, in the present case , were valid, registered, and covered the land-in-question; the mutation-in-question was sanctioned based on said documents, which were duly verified before the transaction---Revenue hierarchy erred in overlooking the documentary evidence and instead relied on a misapprehension of facts---Application of the respondents was not only delayed beyond the statutory limitation period but also involved disputed questions of title and allegations of fraud, which fall outside the jurisdiction of the revenue hierarchy---Such matters must be resolved by a civil court---Furthermore, the principle of acquiescence and bar of limitation were clearly applicable---The respondents' silence for over a decade renders their belated challenge unsustainable---Revenue authorities are creatures of statute and are confined strictly to the jurisdiction vested in them under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967; which are not courts of plenary jurisdiction and cannot venture into questions that involve adjudication of civil rights, title, or allegations of fraud, which require framing of issues and recording of evidence---Ironically the respondents never availed themselves of the remedies available under the law by instituting any civil or criminal proceedings---No recourse was taken under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, nor was any action initiated under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860---The District Collector is empowered to effect corrections in the revenue record only where the illegality or irregularity is manifest, apparent on the face of the record, and already established through a recognized legal or investigative process---Where the matter necessitates a detailed appraisal of evidence for the determination of such questions, particularly in matters involving allegations or commission of fraud, the validity or competence under a General Power of Attorney, the enforceability of a decree, the requirement of execution of a decree, or the applicability of limitation, the jurisdiction of not only the District Collector, but all revenue courts stand ousted---In such circumstances, revenue courts lack the lawful competence to venture into adjudication of such complex and inherently civil disputes--- Therefore, the respondent had no lawful grounds to seek relief from the revenue courts in a matter which squarely fell within the domain of civil adjudication---Member - Board of Revenue set aside the impugned orders while the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) was upheld ;the respondents might seek appropriate relief before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired---Review petition was allowed. PLD 1994 SC 336; 2004 SCMR 604; PLD 2020 Lah. 478; 2014 CLC 1484; 2002 SCMR 1330; 2020 YLR 666; 2011 SCMR 222; PLD 2011 SC 512 and PLD 2010 SC 1 ref. (b) Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957)--- ----S. 8---Review---Scope---Scope of review under S.8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, is narrow and exceptional, requiring a demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record, or a jurisdictional or legal misapprehension so fundamental as to vitiate the underlying order---In the present case, impugned order passed by the same Member - Board of Revenue departed from settled legal principles and disregarded material evidence and proceeded on a misconstruction of both law and fact; it failed to engage with the statutory limitations on revenue jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and overlooked the evidentiary value of registered documents duly produced on record---This Court, therefore, is not reappreciating evidence, but correcting a manifest legal error that strikes at the very root of judicial consistency and jurisdictional propriety---Thus, the review is not only maintainable, but imperative to uphold the integrity of adjudication within the bounds of lawful authority; it was compelled by the imperatives of justice, legality, and institutional discipline---Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Member-Board of Revenue, Punjab, was set aside---Review petition was allowed. Chaudhary Muhammad Iqbal and Ijaz Leshari for Petitioner. Malik Ghazanfar Khalid Saeed for Respondents.

Summary: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss.52, 53, 166 & 172(2)(vi)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Correction of revenue record sought---Whether jurisdiction laid with Revenue Authorities or Civil Court---Long standing entries on basis of valid documents---Effect---Presumption of truth---Scope---Plea of fraud---Whether a revenue court can cancel a mutation lawfully entered in the revenue record on the basis of a registered General Power of Attorney or oral transaction, and construe such mutation as a clerical or factual mistake on the pretext of alleged fraud---Respondents, relying on Ss. 166 & 172(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, filed an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) for correction of revenue record and cancellation of mutation after a lapse of more than 26 years of incorporation of said entries/ mutation, which application was allowed---Held: Application leading to the cancellation of mutation-in-question was filed after an inordinate delay of 26 years and was, therefore, hit by limitation---Said long-standing mutation was based on a registered General Power of Attorney /GPA (dated 14.07.1982) which remained unchallenged---The entries carried a presumption of truth under S.52 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the jurisdiction to challenge such entries rested with the civil courts under S.53, not Revenue Courts---The impugned order failed to address said jurisdictional limitation and did not acknowledge the requirement of instituting a declaratory suit as reiterated in S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---Furthermore, the petitioners substantiated that certified copies of the GPA were placed before the competent authority and that the entire claim of the respondents lacked bona fide as they remained silent for decades, which was detrimental---The mandate of S.53 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 clearly establishes that the revenue hierarchy acts in execution of civil rights determined by the Civil Court and cannot function as a parallel appellate or supervisory body---Had the mutation not been based on a legal document, a different legal scenario might have emerged, even then, establishing fraud would remain a necessary legal threshold before any corrective action---It is legally untenable that a mutation rooted in a legal document had been labeled a mistake merely to circumvent the procedural rigour of approaching a civil court---Complete absence of recourse to a civil court to challenge the legal documents, strips the revenue forum of any jurisdiction---Revenue courts exercise summary jurisdiction and lack competence to adjudicate questions of fraud, title, or complex civil rights arising out of civil litigation---From an equitable standpoint, the conduct of the respondents also triggered the doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel---The application of the respondents involved disputed questions of title and allegations of fraud, which fell outside the jurisdiction of the revenue hierarchy---Such matters must be resolved by a civil court---Furthermore, the principle of acquiescence was attracted as the respondents’ silence rendered their belated challenge unsustainable---Revenue Authorities are creatures of statute and are confined strictly to the jurisdiction vested in them under the Punjab Land Revenue 1967; they are no Courts of plenary jurisdiction and cannot venture into questions that involve adjudication of civil rights, title, or allegations of fraud, which require framing of issues and recording of evidences---The respondents relied upon purposive meaning and interpretation rather than the literal interpretation of Ss.166 & 172(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967---Section 166 states: "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decree or order made by any Revenue Officer, or errors therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by such officer"---A literal interpretation confines said provision strictly to minor, non-substantive corrections arising from inadvertent slips or computational errors---Even under a purposive construction, the legislative intent behind said section is to maintain procedural accuracy not to confer authority upon revenue officers to review or annul entries based on civil court decrees---Likewise, S.172(2)(vi), which allows "the correction of any entry in a record of right, periodical record or register of mutation," is designed for routine administrative corrections---Interpreted purposively, it does not empower revenue authorities to adjudicate complex disputes involving title, fraud, or the enforceability of decrees---Such matters lie exclusively within jurisdiction of Civil Court---Thus, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), was upheld, and as a result, the earlier order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), stood set aside ;the respondents might seek appropriate relief before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired---Petition was allowed accordingly. PLD 2016 SC 872; 2020 YLR 1776; 2010 YLR 2687; 2014 CLC 1484; 2021 SCMR 1068; 2003 SCMR 1330; 2020 YLR 666; PLD 2012 Lah. 160; 2008 SCMR 1658; 2021 CLC 689; 2021 SCMR 391; 2002 SCMR 1330; 2011 SCMR 222; PLD 1994 SC 336; 2004 SCMR 604, PLD 2020 Lah. 478; PLD 2011 SC 512 and PLD 2010 SC 1 ref. Chaudhary Muhammad Iqbal and Ijaz Leshari for Petitioners. Malik Ghazanfar Khalid Saeed for Respondents.

Summary: Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Writ Petition --- Section 5-7 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 and policy decision---The Chairman, PCBL is not vested with any exclusive power to alienate the properties, assets of the Board through any private treaty or understanding and any alienation of the property/ asserts of the Board by the Chairman in contravention of the above law as well as the policy decision, that has no binding force and same does not create any right enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Writ Petition dismissed with heavy cost.

Summary: If prosecution has produced two eyewitnesses and given-up 3rd eyewitness, whose evidence was of same category/nature and not of higher efficacy like injured, then he cannot be summoned as Court Witness; however, accused can produce him as his Defence Witness, if he opts so.

Summary: Effect of non-production of complaint bearer in a case under Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997

Summary: When medical evidence totally negates ocular account then it makes the prosecution story improbable on the one hand, whereas on the other hand also reflects that actual facts have been suppressed or at least not known to the prosecution.

Summary: Section 114(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 explicitly grants a taxpayer the right to revise a return within 60 days of its filing if any omission or wrong statement is discovered. This provision confers a substantive right upon taxpayers to correct errors or omissions in their returns without penalty provided the revised return is filed within the stipulated time. The proviso to Section 114(6) further clarifies that no approval from the Commissioner is required if the revised return is filed within the 60-days period. This underscores the legislative intent to provide taxpayers with a clear opportunity to rectify mistakes within the specified timeframe. In the instant case, the respondents' actions in issuing the impugned notices before the lapse of the 60-days period depicts misuse of authority under Section 177(1) of the Ordinance on the pretext of filing NIL return of income. The statutory framework of the Ordinance envisions a harmonious balance between the taxpayer's right to revise a return and the tax authorities' power to conduct audits. By prematurely initiating audit proceedings, the respondents disrupted this balance and rendered the petitioner's right under Section 114(6) ineffective. This is also clear violation of the principles of fairness and due process.

Summary: Scope of obligation incurred under bank guarantees.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending