P L D 1959 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAM‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAM‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAM‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMID KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Practice--‑Revision--‑New point cannot be allowed to be raised in revision‑Ihata allotted to other person in place of old allottee--‑Compensation for structure allowed by Colony Assistant
Point of inadequacy of compensation money cannot be raised for first time in revision.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner cannot expect me to intervene in the matter of this Ihata in favour of the respondent has already been completed so much so that even the conveyance deed has been delivered to him. The only question that arise is whether the compensation allowed to the petitioner' under the orders of the Colony Assistant in the capacity of a Collector, in respect of his structures in the Ihata, is adequate or not. The petitioner did not, object to the adequacy of the figure of compensation when he appealed to the Commissioner. He cannot properly ask me to change the position at this late stage. He has the option of removing his building materials if he thinks that such a course would be more lucrative to him than obtaining the compensation assessed for it by the Collector. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has to accept his misfortune, however, harsh the process may be. His petition for revision is dismissed without issuing notice to the other party. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.