2002 PLP 2576 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD TAHIR BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2576 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Lateef, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAHIR BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2576 (YLR)?
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 2002 PLP 2576 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Lateef, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2576 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD TAHIR BAIG‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ayyaz Muhammad Khan for Petitioner.
- Abdul Sattar Bhutto for Respondent No.3
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Consolida tion proceedings‑‑‑Adjustment of land in Consolidation Scheme was finalized by the Authorities‑‑‑Appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation was allowed and the land given to the respondent was withdrawn and was returned to the petitioner‑‑‑Revision against the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner was dismissed but Board of Revenue set aside the orders passed by both the forums below and restored the scheme passed by the Consolidation Officer ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Constitu tional jurisdiction was not a proper forum for agitating-‑grievances against the allotment of land in consolidation proceedings‑‑‑Orders made by Consolidation Authorities with regard to allocation of land were not fit matters to be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by Board of Revenue‑‑ Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar PLD 1974 SC 139 fol. Sahibzada Mahmood Ali Khan and Bashir Ahmad for. Respondent No.2.
Judgment & Decree
2. The writ petitioner filed an appeal against that adjustment order which was accepted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation, Multan vide order dated 29‑12‑1986 whereby land bearing No.218/20/2 was withdrawn from respondent No.2, and was given back to the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.2, filed a revision against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division vide order dated 20‑5‑1989.
4. Both the aforesaid orders passed in appeal and revision respectively by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation and Additional Commissioner, Multan, were challenged by respondent No.2, through revision petition which was accepted by Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 28‑3‑1995 whereby both the impugned orders were set- aside and the original schemes between the parties as confirmed by the Consolidation Officer were restored.
5. Order of the Member Board of Revenue, aforesaid is called in question in this Constitutional petition as without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the grounds that: (i) During consolidation proceedings, signatures of the writ petitioner were deceitfully obtained on the assurance that no change would be made and his land would be kept intact which was during consolidation proceedings, given to respondent No.2. (ii) That impugned order suffers from non‑reading of evidence and that; (iii) Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, had entered into an inquiry of facts in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction which was not warranted by law.
6. Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard writ petition and all annexures appended therewith perused.
7. A perusal of the writ petition would show that matter in controversy is with regard to allotment and adjustment 'of land during consolidation proceedings.
8. It is now well‑settled that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for agitating grievances against the allotment of land in consolidation proceedings and orders made by Consolidation Authorities with regard to the allocation of 'land are not tit matters to be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar (PLD 1974 SC 139) followed by a chain of authorities of the apex Court.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, not competent, it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K/M‑l318/L