1992 PLP 634 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD LATIF and 35 others‑‑‑Petitioner; Versus GHULAM RASUL and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 634 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue, Punjab |
| Bench Members | Hafeezullah Ishaq, Member (Consolidation) |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF and 35 others‑‑‑Petitioner; Versus GHULAM RASUL and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 634 (CLC)?
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 1992 PLP 634 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue, Punjab bench comprising: Hafeezullah Ishaq, Member (Consolidation).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 634 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD LATIF and 35 others‑‑‑Petitioner; Versus GHULAM RASUL and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Khatana for Petitioners.
- Ch. Nazar Hussain for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th March, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Consolidation Scheme‑‑‑Setting aside of‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Additional Commissioner's order whereby he set aside Consolidation Scheme was quite detailed bringing out illegalities, irregularities, excesses and short‑comings of the scheme‑‑‑Classification of land was capriciously and selectively done‑‑ Additional Commissioner had .not committed any irregularity for, under Board of Revenue's Memo he was duly authorised to dispose of matter under S.13, West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, and thus, his order did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity‑‑‑Defects in the Consolidation Scheme coming to light in the impugned order and in the special inspection report prepared earlier under order of Board of Revenue, were too numerous and glaring to be corrected through judicial process‑‑‑Consolidation scheme appeared to be full of incurable shortcomings and excesses at the whim of Consolidation Authorities‑‑‑Additional Commissioner, had little option but to set aside the entire consolidation scheme and he rightly did so to rectify injustice done to the right‑holders.
Judgment & Decree
137 0‑12 165 0‑16 166 0‑15 190 1‑16 229 2‑14 272 0‑16 K ‑M 302 1‑1 304 1‑10 311 2‑0 103 1‑0 (vi) Conversely A' number of scheme‑holders were favoured with excess land over their entitlement. Some of the examples are given hereunder:‑‑ Scheme No. Excess. K‑M' 15 4‑12 19 2‑15 29 2‑6 31 3‑0 34 13‑0 35,37 to 40 19‑0 66 5‑18 67 0‑16 69 1‑14 85 4‑3 104 2‑4 112 5‑7 114 2‑18 101 3‑4 124 0-17 145 1-1 146 2‑7 168 3‑16 178 2‑13 191 1‑6 242 1‑13 249‑0‑16 303 0‑13 312 1‑16
6. I have considered the reports and arguments. As regards the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) he has not committed any irregularity because under the Board of Revenue's Memo. No.2279‑88/1456‑CH (P) I, dated 27‑10‑1988, he was duly authorised to dispose of the matter under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance and hence the impunged order does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. The defects coming to light in the impugned order and in the special inspection report of the Consolidation Officer (Hqs) are too numerous and glaring to be corrected through judicial process. In fact the scheme appears to be full of incurable shortcomings and excesses at the whim of the consolidation authorities. It would be appropriate and desirable to initiate disciplinary action against the defaulting field officers. In such circumstances there was little option but to set aside the entire scheme to rectify injustices done to the rightholders. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the revision petition which is dismissed. AA./407/R Revision dismissed.