1998 PLP 2358 (SCMR)
GHAFOOR AHMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COLLECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, JHELUM, OFFICE AT ATTOCK, DISTRICT ATTOCK and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2358 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GHAFOOR AHMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COLLECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, JHELUM, OFFICE AT ATTOCK, DISTRICT ATTOCK and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2358 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2358 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2358 (SCMR) (GHAFOOR AHMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COLLECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, JHELUM, OFFICE AT ATTOCK, DISTRICT ATTOCK and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Ahmad Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sardar M. Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. l to 3.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1998.
- Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Ahmad Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Sardar M. Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. l to 3.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 31‑10‑1996 passed in Writ Petition No.956 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑S. 53‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Entries in Revenue Record‑‑‑Petitioners' substance of grievance was that respondent was threatening to change certain entries in Revenue Record to the detriment of petitioners‑‑ Respondent having denied such allegation contended that Revenue Record being in possession of Consolidation Officer, even if he was minded he could not change entries in question‑‑‑High Court, on basis of such fact, dismissed petitioners' Constitutional petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No final order had yet been passed against petitioners so as to give them grievance to file Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioners' main grievance was that threats had been issued to change relevant entries in Revenue Record which would be detrimental to their interest‑‑‑Respondent had denied such assertion‑‑‑Constitutional petition had, thus, been rightly dismissed by High Court because apprehension of petitioners that adverse entries were likely to be made in Revenue Record was wholly misconceived‑‑‑No case for interference had been made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.
On 31st of October, 1996, writ petition of the petitioners, Ghafoor Ahmed etc. was dismissed by the High Court in the following terms:-- "The substance of the grievance in this Constitutional petition is that respondent No.2 is threatening to change certain entries in the Revenue Record to the detriment of the petitioners. Reply has been called where in para. No.11 the allegations have been denied and it has also been averred that, in fact, the Revenue Record is in possession of the Consolidation Officer, and therefore. even if he was minded, he could not change the entries. The comments of respondent No. l are also to the same effect. In view of the factual position, the apprehension of the petitioners seems to be misconceived. However, even if there is some valid basis of some apprehension the remedy of the petitioner is a civil suit and not Constitutional petition. Dismissed." This petition for leave to appeal has been instituted by the petitioners against the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that there was no justification with the High Court to dismiss the petition of the petitioners in limine without resolving the real controversy between the parties.
2. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners because no final order has yet been passed against them. Their case is that threats have been issued to change the relevant entries in the Revenue Record which shall be detrimental to their interest. Para-wise comments were obtained from the respondents on the direction of the High Court. The respondents denied the assertion of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the petition of the petitioners has rightly been dismissed because the apprehension of the petitioners that adverse entries are likely to be made in the record, is wholly misconceived. No case for interference has been made out. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. A. A./G-16/S Leave refused