1989 PLP 3756 (MLD)
Syed MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM M(G),BOR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3756 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zia Mehmood Mirza, J |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM M(G),BOR and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3756 (MLD)?
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 1989 PLP 3756 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zia Mehmood Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3756 (MLD) (Syed MUHAMMAD ASGHAR‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM M(G),BOR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh.Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner.
- Syed Manzoor Hussain Bokhari, Ghulam Mohammad Khan and Ejaz Ahmad, for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1988
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 42 & 44‑‑Sale of land in favour of vendee comprising certain khasra numbers, was given effect to in Revenue record through mutation‑‑Mutation was subsequently cancelled on review and petitioner admittedly did not file any appeal or revision against cancellation order passed in review‑‑Since mutation stood finally cancelled, said khasra numbers continue to be shown in revenue record in the name of vendors‑‑During consolidation operation corresponding khasra ‑numbers were not given to vendce‑‑Vendee challenged order of Consolidation Officer and Appellate Authority held the vendee entitled to allotment of area which he had purchased from vendors, but vendors having surrendered that area in favour of respondents, Appellate Authority proceeded to observe that it would be just and proper to allot to vendee khasra numbers allotted to respondents in lieu of renumbered khasra numbers mutation of which was finally cancelled earlier‑‑Appellate Authority thus was wrong in holding vendees entitled to khasra numbers allotted to respondents as those khasra numbers admittedly did not represent land purchased earlier by vendee from original vendors‑‑Vendee, however, could at best claim new khasra numbers in place of original khasra numbers originally purchased by him from vendors.
Judgment & Decree
Previous Nos.???????????????????????????????????????????? New numbers with area??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? with area??????? ??? 904 (8 kanals)?????????????????????????????????????????? 847 (8 kanal)??????? 913 (4 kanals)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 855) ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 856) ?????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????857)(4 kanal) 914 (8 kanals)????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 858) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 859) ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????860) (8 kanal) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 861) 936 (3k&2m)???????????????????????????????????????????? 880 (3k&2m)
4. In view of the position aforestated, which the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny, petitioner could, at best, be said to have claim over the new khasra numbers aforementioned but he certainly had no claim whatsoever over khasra Nos. 868 869 and 870 as they were not in his ownership before consolidation. Learned Additional Commissioner appears to have proceeded on erroneous premises in holding that the petitioner was entitled to Khasra Nos.868,869,870 etc. Admittedly, these khasra numbers do not represent the land purchased by the petitioners from 'respondents Nos.20 and
21. That being so, the order of the Additional Commissioner was not sustainable in law and was rightly set aside by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, though on different grounds.
5. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, being just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case does not merit interference m discretionary and equitable writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1522/L Petition dismissed.