1989 PLP 384 (SCMR)
ABDUL RAHMAN and 7 others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 384 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RAHMAN and 7 others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960), (b) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 196(1)= |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 384 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960), (b) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 196(1)= as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 384 (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 384 (SCMR) (ABDUL RAHMAN and 7 others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 597 of 1984).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition No. 597 of 1984).
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No. 664 of 1984).
- Nemo for Respondents (in Civil Petition No. 064 of 1984).
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 198,8.
- Shahid Hussain Kadri Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 597 of 1984).
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Civil Petition No. 664 of 1984).
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgments dated 15-4-1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition 4000 of 1983).
S. 10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199--Whether the passage should have been allowed to remain or whether the area covered by passage should have been given to respondent, was entirely a matter to be considered by Consolidation Authorities
High Court is not the proper forum for agitating such a matter.
S. 10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199--Question whether consequential mutation was in accord with the order made in the course of consolidation proceedings, held, could more appropriately he raised in a Civil Court.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑These two petitions for special leave to appeal arise out of consolidation proceedings held in village Talwandi, Rahwali of Tehsil and District Gujranwala. The dispute between the parties relates to a newly created field marked as Khasra No.
38. It was allocated in the consolidation scheme to Manzoor Hussain, respondent No.
4. Later it was taken away from him for the purpose of a common passage. As the area allocated to him became less than his entitlement, he agitated against the creation of the passage. By an order dated 1‑4‑1978 the Board of Revenue eliminated the passage and allowed him to keep the land. The petitioner in CPSLA No. 597 Filed a review petition before the Board but it was dismissed with the following observation:‑‑ "It is very clear that the passage eliminated in the impugned order is a passage passing through killa Nos. 31 and 32 of Manzoor Hussain respondent No.
1. No other right holder is, affected by the impugned order." Subsequently, the order of the Board of Revenue was implemented in the Revenue record through appropriate mutations. The petitioner challenged the mutations recorded in this regard but without any success. They then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but their writ petition was dismissed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court. The matters whether the passage in question should have been allowed to remain or whether the area covered by the passage should have been given to Manzoor Hussain were matters entirely for the Consolidation authorities to decide and the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was not the proper forum for agitating these matters. The question whether the consequential mutation was in. accord with the order made in the Court of consolidation proceedings can morel ‑appropriately be raised in a Civil Court. We wound accordingly dismiss these petitions. M.A.K./A‑366/S Petition dismissed.