198 PLP 163 (SCMR)
PIR BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVE UE (CONS.) and others — Respondents
| Citation | 198 PLP 163 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | PIR BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVE UE (CONS.) and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 198 PLP 163 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 198 PLP 163 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 198 PLP 163 (SCMR) (PIR BAKHSH and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVE UE (CONS.) and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment -of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-1-1976 passed in Writ Petition No. 69 f 1970).
Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Impugned order of High Court passed more than eight years ago and,, there had been no stay of proceedings- Counsel of petitioners unable to state, for want of instructions, as to the fate of remand proceedings--Presumption that proceedings may have ended--Leave to appeal refuse I.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- This petition arises out of a consolidation proceeding which was sanctioned on 28-9-1960 but was amended at the instance of the respondents on 22-5-1962, against which the petitioner agitated and in the result of his revision, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), by his order, dated 25-6-1968, remanded the matter with certain directions. The petitioner challenged his order first before the Member, Board of Revenue, in revision and upon its dismissal, before the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction but failed there, too.
2. The impugned order of the High Court was passed more than eight years ago, on 28-1-1976. There has been no stay of the proceeding. Yet, learned counsel is unable to say, for want of instructions, as the fate of the remand proceeding. The proceedings may have ended. This is, therefore, not a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed. M.Z.M. Petition dismissed.