1992 PLP 1638 (MLD)
BARKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1638 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | BARKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Act (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1638 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Act (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1638 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1638 (MLD) (BARKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rashid Chughtai for Petitioner.
- Rana M. Arshad Khan, A.A.‑G. and Sh. Abdul AZIZ for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l99‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Petitioner's plea that his valuable land was resumed and allotted to respondents in consolidation operations stood negatived by documentary proof which showed that his consent was obtained by Consolidation Authorities‑‑‑Disputed questions of fact being involved, same could not be gone into by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Impugned orders appeared to be just and proper‑‑‑Both parties were accommodated in accordance with law‑‑‑No jurisdictional defect was pointed out in impugned orders‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l99‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Petitioner's plea that his valuable land was resumed and allotted to respondents in consolidation operations stood negatived by documentary proof which showed that his consent was obtained by Consolidation Authorities‑‑‑Disputed questions of fact being involved, same could not be gone into by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Impugned orders appeared to be just and proper‑‑‑Both parties were accommodated in accordance with law‑‑‑No jurisdictional defect was pointed out in impugned orders‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances. Muhammad Rashid Chughtai for Petitioner. Rana M. Arshad Khan, A.A.‑G. and Sh. Abdul AZIZ for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th March, 1992. Learned Collector (Consolidation), Sheikhupura consolidated the land in question on 20‑12‑1980 by making certain adjustments in the Khatas of the parties. This order was challenged by the respondents by way of an appeal which was heard and allowed by learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore Division, Lahore on 23‑2‑1981. The said order was further challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition before the learned Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was dismissed by the learned Member on 6‑12‑1981. It was observed by the learned Member that 4 Kanals 4 Marlas of class 1 land was given to the petitioner more than his actual entitlement and further his land was reduced from 23 blocks to six blocks after consolidation operations.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that without obtaining the consent of the petitioner his valuable land was resumed and allotted to tile respondents. Attention of the Court was drawn to Annexure R‑2 which shows that before the consolidation operations, consent of Barkat Ali petitioner was obtained by the Consolidation authorities. These are all disputed questions offacts, which cannot at all be gone into by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The impugned orders appear to be just and proper. Both the A parties were accommodated in accordance with law. Learned counsel failed to point out any jurisdictional defects in the impugned orders. This being so, there is no substance in the petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./B‑14/L Petition dismissed.