2000 PLP 893 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AALAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE CONSOLIDATION), PUNJAB, LAHORE
| Citation | 2000 PLP 893 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammd Khokhar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AALAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE CONSOLIDATION), PUNJAB, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 893 (MLD)?
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 2000 PLP 893 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Faqir Muhammd Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 893 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AALAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE CONSOLIDATION), PUNJAB, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M.A. Pirzada for Petitioner.
- Shabbir Ahmad Afghani, Asstt.. A.‑G. and Ch. M. Ashraf Mohandra for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Question of reduction or increase of plot during process of consolidation, was essentially a matter falling within domain of Consolidation Authorities‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, in circumstances, would not be attracted in such matters unless some glaring injustice or error of law affecting jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities was pointed out‑‑ In absence of such conditions, Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised. Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 ref.
Judgment & Decree
M.M.A. Pirzada for Petitioner. Shabbir Ahmad Afghani, Asstt.. A.‑G. and Ch. M. Ashraf Mohandra for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd September, 1997. The petitioner has called in question the validity of orders, dated 29‑6‑1979, 15‑2‑1981, 6‑4‑1982, 15‑9‑1982, 12‑2‑1984 passed by respondents Nos. 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
2. The dispute regarding the consolidation of land has been finally settled between the petitioner and respondent No.5, who are real brother, in that, an area of two acres has been equally divided into eight Kanals each to the petitioner as well as respondent No.5.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground of certain errors of fact inasmuch as the land which the petitioner had developed was parceled away to the other side.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.5 have stated hat the impugned orders are just and fair whereby the consolidation of the land in two equal plots have been made in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.5 to which no exception could be taken. 5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The question of reduction or increase of plots during the process of consolidation is essentially a matter which falls within the domain of the Consolidation Authorities. Ordinarily, the writ jurisdiction is not attracted unless some glaring injustice or errors of law affecting the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities is pointed out. None of all these conditions for interference had been shown to exist. In such‑like cases, the writ jurisdiction is not appropriate remedy. See the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139).
6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is .dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.