1995 PLP 406 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SECRETARY (CONSOLIDATION) and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 406 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SECRETARY (CONSOLIDATION) and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 406 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 406 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 406 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SECRETARY (CONSOLIDATION) and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Masood Sheikh for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 3‑‑‑Consolidation proceedings‑‑‑Consolidation operation in respect of village in question was stopped on a written direction of Minister concerned as according to him village was already consolidated satisfactorily‑‑‑Secretary Consolidation on application of aggrieved person directed Consolidation Officer to complete consolidation according to Rules‑‑‑Consolidation Officer after spot inspection concluded that more than 51% land‑owners were in favour of consolidation‑‑‑Secretary Consolidation, on the other hand, on his visit to village found that record of village was taken for consolidation without obtaining consent of land‑owners as required under law‑‑‑In view of contradictory stances one taken by Secretary Consolidation who negated consent of majority and other taken by Consolidation Officer who had stated that more than 51% persons of village were in favour of consolidation, case was remitted to Secretary Consolidation to decide afresh after spot inspection. Noor Ahmad, Consolidation Officer, Narowal/Shakargarh in person. Mirza Nazir Ahmad, Asstt. Consolidation, M.B.R., Punjab.
Judgment & Decree
Irfan Masood Sheikh for Petitioners. Noor Ahmad, Consolidation Officer, Narowal/Shakargarh in person. Mirza Nazir Ahmad, Asstt. Consolidation, M.B.R., Punjab. Date of hearing: 7th March, 1993. Petitioners who are 139 in number have filed this Constitutional petition against the order dated 2‑1‑1991 of the Board of Revenue, Punjab through which consolidation operation has been stayed on the ground that the same was initiated without obtaining consent of the majority of the land owners. It is the case of the petitioners that the village Karial, Tehsil Shakargarh was never., put under consolidation. The consolidation operation was initiated on the application of the majority of the land‑owners. However, the same was stopped on a written direction of the Minister for Local Government and Rural Development, Punjab dated 16‑5‑1990 as according to him the village was already consolidated satisfactorily (Annex‑B). Faced with this situation the petitioners again approached the Board of Revenue and the Secretary (Consolidation) through his Letter No. 2744‑90/1726‑CHIP) I., dated 4th October, 1990 directed to complete the consolidation according to rules (Annex. C). Thereupon, Consolidation Officer who is present in Court today visited the spot on 22‑1‑1991 and came to the conclusion that more than 51% land‑owners favoured the consolidation. His report is Annexure "D" with the petitioner. However, before his visit the impugned letter was issued by the Secretary (Consolidation), Board of Revenue oblivious of the earlier direction issued through aforementioned letter dated 4‑10‑1990. According to the impugned letter the Secretary (Consolidation) on his visit to the village found that the record of the village was taken for consolidation without obtaining the consent of the land‑owners as required under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has impugned this last letter dated 2‑1‑1991 as according to him the same has been issued in an arbitrary manner without proper verification of the facts. I have given my anxious consideration to these facts. There are contradictory stances; one taken by Secretary (Consolidation) on his visit and the other taken by the Consolidation Officer in this case. The former negates the consent of the majority while the latter states through his report which is appended with this writ petition dated 22‑1‑1991 that more than 51% of the persons of the village were in favour of the consolidation. In view of the contradictory stances it deems proper to remit this matter to the Secretary (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, who shall decide this issue after his visit to the village Karial alongwith Consolidation Officer. Accordingly, order dated 2‑1‑1991 of the Secretary (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to him for his fresh decision. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1814/L Order accordingly.