1982 PLP 146 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMED-Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 146 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --Art 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Question whether Member, Board of Revenue wrongly came to conclusion as to purpose of allotment of land made in favour of petitioner being not fulfilled-Held, ques tion of fact and cannot be gone into by Supreme Court-Leave to appeal declined.-Question of fact. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED-Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 146 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 146 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --Art 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Question whether Member, Board of Revenue wrongly came to conclusion as to purpose of allotment of land made in favour of petitioner being not fulfilled-Held, ques tion of fact and cannot be gone into by Supreme Court-Leave to appeal declined.-Question of fact. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 146 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMED-Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hussain & Co., Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 10th February 1981.
- Amjad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hussain & Co., Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On petition against the judgment and order dated 14th July, 1975 passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1435 of 1975) --Art 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Question whether Member, Board of Revenue wrongly came to conclusion as to purpose of allotment of land made in favour of petitioner being not fulfilled-Held, ques tion of fact and cannot be gone into by Supreme Court-Leave to appeal declined.-[Question of fact].
Judgment & Decree
Amjad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hussain & Co., Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 10th February 1981. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑Land was allotted to Bashir Ahmed, petitioner, in the Tehsil and District of Sargodha under Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme by the Collector, Sargodha by his order dated 27th May, 1970. A registered sale‑deed was executed by the Provincial Government in favour of the petitioner on 1st June, 1970.
2. Khan Bahadur, respondent No. 2, happened to be the lessee of the land in dispute under a subsisting lease which was due to expire on 15‑6‑1971. He therefore, filed a civil suit. There was a compromise to the effect that Khan Bahadur will retain possession till the tenure of his leave expired.
3. When the lessee did not give possession, the petitioner moved the executive for delivery of possession, which is said to have been delivered on 18‑11‑1971 by the revenue staff. On being approached the petitioner is supposed to have leased out the land again to respondent No. 2 for one harvest. A suit by the petitioner followed.
4. Meanwhile Government had introduced the Scheme commonly known as 15 Years Lease Scheme. Respondent No. 2, there fore, moved the Collector for setting aside the allotment made to the petitioner on 25‑5‑1970 but his petition was dismissed. He went in appeal to the Commissioner, which was also dismissed. This was followed by a revision petition, which was accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue on 21‑5‑1975. The petitioner, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 1435 of 1975 in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of that Court on 14‑7‑1975. Hence, this petition for special leave to appeal.
5. The question whether the submission that the Member, Board of Revenue was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the purpose for which the allotment was made in favour of the petitioner had not been fulfilled is not correct, cannot be gone into by this Court because it is eminently a question of fact. It cannot be denied that respondent No. 2 was in possession of the area since 1960, that he was the landlord and that the area involved was only 10 acres or so, where for he was given the benefit of the 15 Years Lease Scheme. No exception can be taken to this order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue and affirmed by the Lahore High Court with which we are in full agreement that is writ jurisdiction relief being discretionary it cannot be granted in aid of injustice. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.