1989 PLP 1373 (SCMR)
YARA and others Petitioners Versus AHMAD Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1373 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | YARA and others Petitioners Versus AHMAD Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (V7 of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1373 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (V7 of 1960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1373 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1373 (SCMR) (YARA and others Petitioners Versus AHMAD Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 27th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 30‑3‑85 of the Lahore High Court in C.R. No.631/D/85). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioners who were related to the respondent, filed a suit for declaration that they were owners of the entire Killa in their own right as well as through adverse possession‑‑Prior to consolidation, holdings of both the parties were joint and respondent had a share in the Killa in dispute whereon he had constructed houses‑‑Consolidation Officer had thus a good justification for the allocation of the area in question to the respondent in circumstances‑‑Supreme Court declined to disturb the ordef of Consolidation Officer.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Consequent upon consolidation proceedings in the village, an area measuring 10 marlas out of Killa No.ll of Square No.26, measuring in all 10 kanals and 4 marlas, was allocated to the respondent. The petitioners who are related to the respondent, filed a suit for a declaration that they were owners of the entire Killa in their own right as well as through adverse possession. The learned trial Court decreed the suit with regard to the Killa in question but excluded from the declaration the area of 10 marlas which had been given by the consolidation authorities to the respondent. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge but it was dismissed. They then filed a revision petition in the High Court but that too failed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed by the petitioners that prior to consolidation their holding was joint with the respondent and that the respondent had a share in the Killa in dispute (see statement of Yara, petitioner, before the trial Court at page 48 of the paperbook). A part of the Killa was being used for residential purposes. The reason why the consolidation authorities gave 10 marlas out of the Killa in question to the respondent was found by the Additional District Judge to be as follows:‑‑ "It is admitted by the parties that due to the flood which fell in the year 1973 both the parties left their houses and sought a shelter from the flood area as the disputed property fell under the flood. Ahmad D.W.2 has admitted that the parties were in possession of the disputed property jointly before the consolidation proceedings which indicated that the respondent/defendant had his houses on the disputed property prior to the consolidation proceedings. This is why the respondent/defendant was sided by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation, to the effect that he should not be deprived of his houses constructed by him on the disputed property." There was thus a good justification with the consolidation officer for the allocation of the area in question to the respondent. We see no reason to disturb the order of the consolidation authorities which does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./Y‑16/S Petition dismissed.