1995SCMR51 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ROSHI and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR51 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ROSHI and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR51 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR51 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR51 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. ROSHI and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate with Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1993.
- 2. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly taken up two grounds‑‑one factual and the other legal in support. of this petition. The first is that both the High Court as well as the Member, Board of Revenue have wrongly assumed that the petitioners have received against their entitlement of 171 Kanals 5 Marlas of Class‑I land, 174 Kanals 5 Marlas of land. This, according to the learned counsel, is incorrect. In fact the petitioners have received a deficient land as compared to their entitlement of Class‑I land.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25‑5‑1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 3166/84). (a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 163‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Factual controversy with regard to exact entitlement of petitioners and deficiency in making allocation of land to them was not pointed out or disputed before Board of Revenue‑‑‑In absence of such ground having been taken before Board of Revenue, High Court and Supreme Court would be justified in considering finding of fact of Board of Revenue, as sacrosanct. (b) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Consolidation Scheme‑‑‑Challenge to‑‑‑Consent of land owners in Consolidation Scheme‑‑ Entitlement to agitate against such Scheme‑‑‑Distribution of land in consolidation proceedings and Scheme of Consolidation was ordinarily required to be prepared by sort of consensual arrangement by the affected land‑owners‑‑‑Such fact by itself would not bind them in a manner to disentitle them from challenging Scheme with regard to their entitlement and the category of land being offered to them so as to satisfy requirements of the law of consolidation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Respondents Nos. 1 to 10 in person.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25‑5-1992 whereby in a consolidation matter the High Court refused to interfere with the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue.
2. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly taken up two grounds‑‑one factual and the other legal in support. of this petition. The first is that both the High Court as well as the Member, Board of Revenue have wrongly assumed that the petitioners have received against their entitlement of 171 Kanals 5 Marlas of Class‑I land, 174 Kanals 5 Marlas of land. This, according to the learned counsel, is incorrect. In fact the petitioners have received a deficient land as compared to their entitlement of Class‑I land. Secondly, it is contended that the order which the respondents have successfully avoided was passed by‑way of consent and they have derived substantial benefit out of the same. In such a situation they should not have been permitted to challenge such an order.
3. We find that not even in the Review petition filed before the Member, Board of Revenue the factual controversy with regard to the exact entitlement of the petitioners and the deficiency in making allocation to them was ever pointed out or disputed. In the absence of such a ground in the Review Petition or elsewhere the High Court and this Court would be justified in considering this finding of fact of the Board of Revenue sacrosanct.
4. In consolidation proceedings the distribution of land and the scheme of consolidation is ordinarily required to be prepared by sort of consensual arrangement by the affected land‑owners. That by itself does not bind them in a manner to disentitle them from challenging a scheme with regard to their entitlement and the category of land being offered to them so as to satisfy the requirement of the law of consolidation.
5. No merit is found in the petition and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./M‑2054/S Leave refused.