P L D 1965 W (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL RASUL‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL RASUL‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960), (a) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960), (a) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL RASUL‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10 (4)‑Assistant Consolidation Officer not competent to sanction scheme if all owners not agreeable‑Matter to be referred to Collector under S. 10 (4) in case of dispute.
S. 13‑Revision‑Limitation‑Ordinance prescribes no limita tion nor lays down that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised if appeal is rejected as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
S. 13‑Revision‑Limitation‑Ordinance prescribes no limita tion nor lays down that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised if appeal is rejected as time‑barred. Abdul Majid for Petitioners. Respondent in person. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 29th of March, 1962 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore, whereby he accepted the revision filed by the respondent. The facts of the case are that, in spite of the fact that Fazal Rasul respondent did not agree to the scheme of consolidation of holdings, the A.C.O. sanctioned it. Fazal Rasul went in appeal to the A. D. C. (Consolidation) but it was rejected as time‑barred. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Con solidation) who partly accepted it. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. The A.C.O. had no legal authority to sanc tion a scheme if all the owners had not agreed to it. Probably, he was influenced by the consideration that, in the first instance, Fazal Rasul agreed but subsequently refused to sign. Even in that case, it would have been better to refer the matter to Collector under section 10 (4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) should not have been interfered with in his revisional jurisdiction because the respondent's time‑barred appeal was rightly rejected by the Collector. I am afraid, I cannot agree with this contention. Neither any limitation has been prescribed nor there is anything in the Ordinance to the effect that once the appeal is rejected as time‑barred, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) interfered because the respondent held 40 kanals of land to the north of the graveyard while he had been given only 25 kanals and 7 marlas of land by the A. C. O. He, therefore, modified the original scheme whereby 6 kanals and 15 marlas of land more were given to the respondent to the north of graveyard. In the circumstances of the case this was a perfectly justified thing to do: I, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Petition dismissed.