1991 PLP 358 (SCMR)
IMTIAZ AHMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 358 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | IMTIAZ AHMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 358 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 358 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 358 (SCMR) (IMTIAZ AHMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab; Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
- Date of hearing: 29th October, 1989.
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab; Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
- We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the findings of the Courts below. The learned counsel for petitioners when questioned to state the position of the petitioners that how they claim and show interest in the property in dispute as apparently they are trespassers. He failed to give us a satisfactory reply. We find that the order of restoration dated 10‑11‑1980 I has not been implemented and the petitioners after the rejection of their appeal also failed in writ petition before the High Court. All the Courts below have consistently held that the order of restoration has not been implemented. That being so, no justification has been made out for the grant of leave to appeal. This petition, therefore, is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 24-8-1986, passed in W.P. No. 878 of 1986).
Art. 185(3)
Respondents who were tenants in possession of land in dispute, riled an application before Collector against their forcible ejectment by petitioners who apparently were trespassers
Collector accepting application of respondents directed restoration of their tenancy and that order was affirmed up to High Court
Petitioners who apparently were trespassers failed to show any claim or interest in respect of property in dispute
Order of restoration of tenancy having not so far been implemented, no justification had been made out for grant of leave to appeal
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 24‑8‑1986, whereby the petitioners' writ petition against the orders passed by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 respectively, was dismissed. The respondents Nos.4 and 5 who were the tenants in possession of the land in dispute, filed an application before the Collector Multan against their forcible ejectment by the petitioners. The learned Collector vide his order dated 21‑9‑1980 accepted the said application and directed the restoration of their tenancy. On the basis of this order the said respondents applied to the Tehsildar for correction in the Khasra Girdawari for the Rabi 1981 which was rejected by his order dated 13‑6‑1981. The respondents against the order of the Tehsildar again went in appeal before the Collector who vide his order dated 29‑10‑1984 not only allowed the appeal of the respondents but also directed that the order dated 21‑9‑1980 directing restoration of tenancy of the respondents be implemented. Appeal of the petitioners before the Addl. Commissioner and their subsequent revision before the Member, Board of Revenue were dismissed vide orders dated 12‑6‑1986 and 13‑7‑1986 respectively. The petitioners then went in writ petition before the High Court. The same was also dismissed in limine. Hence this petition for leave. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the findings of the Courts below. The learned counsel for petitioners when questioned to state the position of the petitioners that how they claim and show interest in the property in dispute as apparently they are trespassers. He failed to give us a satisfactory reply. We find that the order of restoration dated 10‑11‑1980 I has not been implemented and the petitioners after the rejection of their appeal also failed in writ petition before the High Court. All the Courts below have consistently held that the order of restoration has not been implemented. That being so, no justification has been made out for the grant of leave to appeal. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. H.B.T./I‑107/S Petition dismissed.