1989 PLP 1705 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus REFU and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1705 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus REFU and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1705 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1705 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1705 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus REFU and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sh.Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanweer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
November, 1988. (On appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P.No. 1313 of 1983, dated 30‑3‑1983). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petitioner raising plea before High Court which was not raised before Board of Revenue‑‑Said fact by itself could be a proper ground for High Court not to entertain a plea which needed inquiry‑‑Approach of High Court in regard to the vital points involved in the case being unexceptionable leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by High Court of a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. It had arisen out of his grievance in a consolidation matter. The point which arose before the High Court was noted and dealt with as follows:‑ "Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the observation of the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue that the land in dispute is situated in the urban area of Town Committee, Sambrial is factually wrong. He, however, could not controvert the fact that the land in dispute restored in favour of Rafu respondent No.l was owned and possessed by the respondent prior to consolidation. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioner has planted a garden over the land in dispute and this fact has also escaped notice of the learned Member, Board of Revenue have considered the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner but find not persuaded to interfere in the impugned order. Undoubtedly the land in dispute belonged to the respondent and was under his possession prior to consolidation. The restoration whereof to him was in accordance with the principles of consolidation. The question that the land in dispute is situated in the urban area or not has no bearing on the decision of the case particularly when the petitioner cannot lay valid claim to the land in dispute. The other contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner has planted a garden over the disputed property is of no force because this plea was neither mentioned in the grounds of revision before the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue nor addressed at the Bar before him. No injustice appears to have been done to the petitioner if the land in dispute owned and possessed by Rafu respondent has been restored to him." Learned counsel has confidently asserted that another ground which was urged before the High Court was not notice in the impugned judgment. It is, that the original order was based on the consent of the respondents side. When questioned whether this last point was urged before the Board of Revenue in the same form as is being presented before this Court, the learned counsel answered A, in the negative, This by itself could be proper ground for the High Court not to entertain a plea which needed inquiry. The approach of the High Court in regard to the vital points involved in the case is unexceptionable We do not consider it a proper case to grant leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. MA.K/M‑942/S Leave refused.