Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 12 . procedural restriction, hitch or hindrance in his way. 13. The mere fact that land revenue may have been paid by the father of Respondent No.1 also does not improve his case. We have specifically asked the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 who would be liable to pay land revenue and other public dues against the said land in case there was default in payment of the same. He has hesitatingly admitted that the person liable to pay such defaulted amounts would be Respondent No.1. Even in terms of provisions of Section 74 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 the land revenue and all other Government dues payable against a particular piece/tract of land are recoverable from a person whose name appears as owner of such land in the revenue records. This is irrespective of who may be cultivating or allegedly receiving its benefits as an agent or nominee of the real owner. It is also significant to note that Respondent No.1 neither produced his father as a witness before the Election Tribunal nor produced any other credible evidence to establish his half hearted plea of Benami ownership, other than revenue payment receipts which were found by us to be insufficient to establish his plea. 14. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has also emphasized the fact that a bonafide error or mistake of fact or law may be condoned and save a person from being hit by the rigours of Election Laws as well as the Constitution. In this regard, he has referred to Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad