1989 PLP 1096 (SCMR)
FALAK SHER and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1096 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FALAK SHER and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1096 (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 1096 (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 1096 (SCMR) (FALAK SHER and others‑‑Petitioners Versus SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Hafeezur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 13‑6‑1984 in W.P. No.5086 of 1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore). ‑‑‑Ss.3, 4 & 10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition against Consolidation Scheme dismissed‑‑Competency of Constitutional jurisdiction against consolidation proceedings‑‑Supreme Court in cases reported as 1970 S C M R 292, P L D 1974 S C 139 and 1981 S C M R 834 had laid down the law that writ jurisdiction was not the proper forum for agitating grievances against the allocation of land in consolidation proceedings‑‑High Court was thus justified in not interfering. with orders of Consolidation Authorities‑‑Petition being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances. Ghulam Oadir v. Member, Board of Revenue 1970 S C M R 292; Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar P L D 1974 S C 139 and Amir Din etc. v. Muhammad Malik 1981 S C M R 834 rel
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners are dissatisfied with the consolidation proceedings inasmuch as they have not been allowed to retain 60 kanals of land falling in rectangles No.1631 and 1632. Their constitutional petition challenging the order of the consolidation authorities was dismissed by the High Court and they now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It has already been observed in a number of judgments by this Court that the writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for agitating grievances against the allocation of land in consolidation proceedings (see Ghulam Oadir v. Member, Board of Revenue 1970 S C M R 292, Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar A P J D 1974 S C 139 and Amir Din etc. v. Muhammad Malik 1981 S C M R
834. The High Court was therefore, justified in not interfering with the orders of the consolidation authorities. This petition is accordingly dismissed. AA./F‑101/S Petition dismissed.