1981 SCMR 696 (PLP)
GHULAM NABI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1981 SCMR 696 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akram and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI — Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 SCMR 696 (PLP)?
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 1981 SCMR 696 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Akram and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 SCMR 696 (PLP) (GHULAM NABI — 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
- Ch. Rafiq Ahmed Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for petitioners.
- Kh. M. Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th April, 1979.
- 2 After remand the Collector made some changes and prepared new modified wandas for petitioner as well as respondents Nos.4 and 5 on 30-10-1976. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as it was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons). On 9-3-1977 and a revision filed by the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the M.B.R. (Punjab) Lahore on 6-8-1978. The petitioner then challenged these orders by means of writ petition No. 4144 of 1978 which too brought no fruit and was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 12-12-1978. the petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
- 3. We asked the learned counsel as to what was his precise objection with regard to the wands of his client--and how was he aggrieved from the orders above-mentioned ? Firstly he titled to object to the consolidation operation of the whole village, but when we told him that the case of the whole village was not before us, as neither the land of the whole village was the subject of dispute and nor the whole body of land owners of the village was a party in this case he falt difficulty in processing his case in that direction. When therefore, asked to confine his submissions to the grievances of his own client, he submitted that the consolidation has resulted in further splitting up his holding in store plots and places as compared to his position before consolidation. Apart from the fact that this is no ground to find fault with consolidation proceedings as laid down by this Court in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (P L D 1974 S C 139) even otherwise on factual plane the learned counsel could not substantiate this plea, and rather the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 and 5, pointed out that previous number of plots of the petitioner were more viz.-7 `but after consolidation it had been reduced to 5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner argued that his client has got less area of superior quality land more area of inferior quality, but here again when his attention was drawn to that chart contained at page 32 of the paper book-pare. 6 of the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 9-3-1977--which showed that on the whole he had rather been better off, the learned counsel had no answer.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 12th December, 1978, in W.P. No. 4144/1978).
S. 3
Fact that consolidation has resulted in further splitting up holding in more plots and places as compared to position before consolidation --Held, no ground to find fault with consolidation proceedings--Number of plots of petitioner before consolidation being 7 while after consolidation such number reduced to 5 and as regards allotment of inferior quality land petitioner also better off objection of petitioner overruled. Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P.L.D 1974 SC 139 ref.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.
During the course of consolidation of the land of village Kapurowali, Tehsil and District Silakot a scheme distributing the land between the land owners was contirmed on 24-8-1963 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.)/Collector (hereinafter called Collector for the sake of brevity). Different land owners who felt aggrieved from their respective wandas filed appeals which were accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Cons). On 18-4-1971. and the matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision of the cases of the respective parties. In the present case we are concerned with respondents Nos. 4 and 5 whose appeal against the petitioner was similarly remanded. 2 After remand the Collector made some changes and prepared new modified wandas for petitioner as well as respondents Nos.4 and 5 on 30-10-1976. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as it was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons). On 9-3-1977 and a revision filed by the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the M.B.R. (Punjab) Lahore on 6-8-1978. The petitioner then challenged these orders by means of writ petition No. 4144 of 1978 which too brought no fruit and was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 12-12-1978. the petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. We asked the learned counsel as to what was his precise objection with regard to the wands of his client--and how was he aggrieved from the orders above-mentioned ? Firstly he titled to object to the consolidation operation of the whole village, but when we told him that the case of the whole village was not before us, as neither the land of the whole village was the subject of dispute and nor the whole body of land owners of the village was a party in this case he falt difficulty in processing his case in that direction. When therefore, asked to confine his submissions to the grievances of his own client, he submitted that the consolidation has resulted in further splitting up his holding in store plots and places as compared to his position before consolidation. Apart from the fact that this is no ground to find fault with consolidation proceedings as laid down by this Court in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (P L D 1974 S C 139) even otherwise on factual plane the learned counsel could not substantiate this plea, and rather the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 and 5, pointed out that previous number of plots of the petitioner were more viz.-7 `but after consolidation it had been reduced to
5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner argued that his client has got less area of superior quality land more area of inferior quality, but here again when his attention was drawn to that chart contained at page 32 of the paper book-pare. 6 of the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 9-3-1977--which showed that on the whole he had rather been better off, the learned counsel had no answer.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.