1990 PLP 1008 (SCMR)
JAHANA and others — Petitioners Versus SADIQ and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1008 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | JAHANA and others — Petitioners Versus SADIQ and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1008 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1008 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1008 (SCMR) (JAHANA and others — Petitioners Versus SADIQ and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Ahmad Khan Balooch, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (,in C.P. 794/89).
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record and Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. 794/89).
- Sh. Abdul Majid, Advocate of Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad ~3:Yousaf. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 803/89).
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record and Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. 803/89).
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court dated 16-4-1989 in i.C.A. No. 16/89).
S.30 (2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Petition for leave to appeal, competency to file
High Court had declared the order passed by Board of Revenue not legally maintainable being violative of provisions of S.30, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
The affected party filed Intra-Court appeal which was dismissed as time-barred
Member. Board of Revenue whose order was declared without lawful authority by High Court did not file any appeal
Both the affected party and the Member, Board of Revenue, filed petitions for leave to appeal against the order of High Court
Petition for leave to appeal merited dismissal on the short ground that against the order of High Court, Member, Board of Revenue did not file Intra-Court appeal
Even otherwise Board of Revenue's order being violative of the provisions of S.30(2), Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act was not legally maintainable No question of law of public importance having been raised for examination in petition
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 28th October, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16-4-1989 has been assailed by means of two different petitions for leave to appeal. Sadiq son of Wahab, respondent in Civil Petition No- 794/89, invoked the Constitution jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court in which he challenged the order dated 7-8-1986 passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore. The petition was accepted by a learned Judge who found the order impugned in the Constitution petition violative of the provisions of section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and as such was not legally maintainable. That order was declared to be without lawful authority. Constitution petition was allowed. Aggrieved by that order, Jahana filed an Intra-Court Appeal. The appeal was filed after the limitation had expired. An explanation was given by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The Bench found that to be unsatisfactory. No sufficient cause was shown for the condonation of delay. The Bench observed: "Apart altogether from the above position that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the short ground of having been filed beyond the period of limitation the contention raised on behalf of the appellant also does not appear to have force." The other petition (C.P. 803/89) is by Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore, in which leave is being sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, referred to above. The Member (Colonies) felt aggrieved because it was his order which was set aside by the learned Judge and whose order was confirmed by the Letters Patent Bench after a thorough and detailec discussion regarding merits and entitlement of the parties. This petition merits dismissal on the short ground that against the order of the learned single Judge the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue did not file anY lntra-Court Appeal. Nevertheless. it was observed by the learned .Judge:-- "In the circumstances of the present case, the petitioner obtained the tenancy rights under the Grow More Food Scheme in respect of the State land in question on 23-11-1956. At that time, admittedly, he was owner of land measuring 19 kanals and 14 marlas in Chak No. 356/GB. Thus no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by him when he acquired the tenancy rights in respect of the State land in question under Grow More Food Scheme." For the foregoing reasons the learned Judge held that the order passed by Member (Colonies) was violative of the provisions of section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands, (Punjab) Act, 1912 and as such was not legally maintainable. There is no question of law of public importance to be examined in any one of these petitions. Hence both the petitions are dismissed. A.A./J-66/S Petitions dismissed.