SCMR 1986

1986 PLP 769 (SCMR)

ABDUR RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 640 of 1977, decided on 18th November, 1985.
Honorable Judges
Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 769 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ
Parties ABDUR RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR and others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 769 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 769 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 769 (SCMR) (ABDUR RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZHAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Ch. Hafeez Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 18th November, 1985.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 14-9-1977 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 2439 of 1977).

Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--High Court's order based on two decisions of Supreme Court, challenged--No ground for interfering with impugned order found, specially when it was based on two earlier decisions of Supreme Court. P L D 1965 S C 399 and Muhammad Hussain and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref.

Judgment & Decree

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑In this case certain orders, passed in relation to the consolidation proceedings of village Kot Daska, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot,, are being challenged.

2. The Scheme of Consolidation was confirmed on 13‑3‑1971 and the pros and cons thereof have been under examination of various Revenue Officers including the Board of Revenue. A learned Member of the Board of Revenue finally disposed of the matter vide order, dated 9‑8‑1977. The last‑mentioned order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition and the High Court relying on two decisions of this Court in Pir Muhammad Farid Jan v. Colonization Officer, Hyderabad and 4 others P L D 1965 S C 399 and Muhammad. Hussain and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 dismissed the writ petition.

3. This petition for leave to appeal has been moved to challenge the aforementioned order of the High Court.

4. We do not find any reason for re‑examining this whole matter again and find no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court, especially when it is based on two decisions of this Court. M. I. Petition dismissed.