1989 PLP 1163 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1163 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1163 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1163 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1163 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 15th December, 1984 of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 4393 of 1984) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 6‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Consolidation of land‑‑Only question on which the success or otherwise of the petition depended was one of fact namely, whether the petitioner had surrendered the land in question, through a statement recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which was also alleged to have been thumb‑marked by him‑‑High Court had found that such a statement was made by the petitioner‑‑No justification, thus was available for grant of leave to appeal‑‑Leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a writ petition which had arisen out of the proceedings for consolidation of land holdings. The only question on which the success or otherwise of the petitioner depends is one of fact, namely; whether, the petitioner had surrendered the land in question‑‑4 Kanals 10 Marlas, through a 'statement recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and was also alleged to have been thumb‑marked by him. After hearing. the learned counsel on the aforenoticed question we see no reason to differ with the assessment by the High Court that such a statement was made by the petitioner. That being so no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same is refused. M.B.A./G‑178/S Leave refused.