1988 PLP 1065 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1065 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1065 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1065 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1065 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 1‑7‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in R.S.A. No.889 of 1966). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Trifling matter‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Government seeking leave to appeal‑‑Recovery of land revenue at penal rate, amounting to Rs.800 involved‑‑Not being a fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑It is urged on behalf of the petitioner (Province of the Punjab) that the respondent had remained in possession from Rabi 1960 to Rabi 1962 in the half portion of the land which on the expiry of his lease was to be surrendered to the Government and that the Collector had decided that rent at 10 times the Land Revenue for a period of two years i.e. 1961 and 1962 be charged from him. On our enquiry as to how much was the amount of rent for this period of two years, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it amounted to Rs.800. We do not think this is a fit case for exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction to grant of leave to appeal in such a case.