1988 PLP 1803 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (Colonies), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1803 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (Colonies), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1803 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1803 (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: 1988 PLP 1803 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (Colonies), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Abid Nawaz Advocate-on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
- S. Abid Nawaz Advocate‑on ‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 27-6-1981 in W.P.No.329 of 1981/l BWP ) --Arts.185 & 199--Writ jurisdiction, exercise of Petitioner approaching High Court directly, without agitating his grievance before competent Revenue Authority--Loss of locus standi--Competency of such approach--Lease of Government land--Claim of both contesting reject, by Additional Commissioner--Respondent alone filed parties revision petition before Member, Board of Revenue which was 'boner's writ petition challenging order of member, Board accepted Revenue rejected on ground that he could not have directly filed after the decision of Additional Commissioner Order writ petition a that it was duty of respondent to implead petitioner impugned--Plea that in Revision before M.B.R., repelled necessary having as respond before Additional Commissioner, it was necessary for lost his case him to agitate his grievance before M . B . R .--He having accepted order of Additional Commissioner, lost his locus standi to file a writ petition in High Court--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court. It has arisen out of an allotment/lease of Government owned land. The contest between the petitioner and respondent No.2 came decided before an Additional commissioner who rejected the to be decided claim of both the sides. Respondent No.2 then filed a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was allowed. The petitioner then challenged the order of the Member, Board of Revenue before the High Court through a writ petition which having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought. The High Court took the view that the petitioner not having challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner before the Member, Board of Revenue, could not have filed directly a writ petition in the High Court so as to keep his grievance alive after the decision of the Additional Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was the duty of the respondent No.2 to implead the petitioner as a respondent in the revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. We do not agree with him. The petitioner in reality lost his case before the Additional Commissioner. It was, therefore, necessary for him to agitate his grievance before the Member, Board of Revenue. He having accepted the order of the Additional Commissioner, lost his locus standi to file a writ petition in the High Court. The same having rightly been dismissed, leave to appeal is refused. M.I. /M‑525/S Petition dismissed.