1986 PLP 2334 (CLC)
SHERA and others — Petitioners Versus HAQ NAWAZ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2334 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHERA and others — Petitioners Versus HAQ NAWAZ and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2334 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2334 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2334 (CLC) (SHERA and others — Petitioners Versus HAQ NAWAZ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Aziz Ahmad for Petitioners.
- Syed Jamshed Ali for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199--West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (V1 of 1960), S.11--Consolidation of holdings--Order of--Appeal against- Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--High Court on basis of consent of parties disposed of writ petition with direction to Collector to dispose of appeals filed by parties afresh by applying mind independently of direction if any given by higher Appellate Authorities, taking into consideration all contentions raised by parties and after giving them opportunity of being heard.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Aziz Ahmad for Petitioners. Syed Jamshed Ali for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th March, 1986. The dispute relates to 397 Kanals 13 Marlas of land the possession of which was given to the petitioners in pursuance as a decree of a Civil Court on 21-5-1977. Subsequently this land alongwith other land in the village was subjected to consolidation by the revenue authorities. The case of the petitioners is that during the consolidation proceedings the possession of the petitioners was disturbed without any sufficient cause. They challenged the orders of the Consolidation Officer, dated 3-8-1981, confirming the Scheme, in the Court of. the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector (Cons.). The Collector was also seized of an appeal made by the respondent No.2. The Collector dismissed both the appeals by a single order of 27-3-1982. The petitioners and respondent 2 challenged the orders in revision before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order, dated 22-6-1982 remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision on the appeal with certain directions. The petitioners challenged the orders of the Additional Commissioner, dated 22-6-1982 in the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on 31-12-1984. This brings the petitioners to the High Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.
2. The main question agitated by the petitioners is that while remanding the case the Collector has been precluded from considering the judgment of the civil Court under which possession of the disputed property was given to the petitioners. They have no objection if the Collector is left free to decide appeal afresh after considering all the contentions of the parties including the contention relating to the judgment of the civil Court. This is acceptable to the respondents.
3. In view of the above agreed position the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Collector to dispose of both the appeals) afresh by applying his mind independently of the direction given to him by the Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue. He shall give an opportunity of being heard, to the parties and shall consider all the contentions raised by either of the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. H. B. T. Order accordingly.