1989 PLP 1946 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another Petitioners Versus Mst. MAQBOOLAN BEGUM and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1946 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another Petitioners Versus Mst. MAQBOOLAN BEGUM and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1946 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1946 (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 1946 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another Petitioners Versus Mst. MAQBOOLAN BEGUM and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdur Rehman-II, Advocate, instructed by Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- M. Hassan, Advocate, instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1
- Nemo for Respondent No.2
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 1989.
- Ch. Abdur Rehman‑II, Advocate, instructed by Ch. Qamaruddin Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Hassan, Advocate, instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5th February1985 of the Lahore High Court in W.P.No.4539 of 1984).
S.10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Consolidation of holdings- Dispute left to be resolved was about 2 acres of land which fell in a Khata in which petitioners were not co-sharers--Contention that major shareholders in the said Khata had agreed that the petitioners may be included as co-sharers in that Khata but all the other co-sharers did not agree to the arrangement--Controversy had been examined by the Member, Board of Revenue in that particular context and other party being Pardahnasheen, lady no injustice had been done to the petitioners--Relevant law had also been substantially complied with--Re-opening of case thus was not justified--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAN, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners Writ Petition which had arisen out of a case of consolidation of holdings. Learned counsel admits that the dispute now left to be resolved is about 2 Acres of land and it falls in a Khata in which petitioners were not co‑sharers. He, however, vehemently contended that the major shareholders in the said Khata had agreed that the petitioners may be included as co‑sharer in that Khata. He, however, admits that all the other co‑sharers do not agree to this arrangement. The controversy having been examined by the Member, Board of A Revenue in this particular context and the other party being Pardah Nasheen lady, we do not consider that any injustice has been done to the petitioners. The relevant law has also been substantially complied with. There is no justification for re‑opening the case now. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./M‑984/S Petition dismissed.