1989 PLP 1744 (SCMR)
ALLAH RASI‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONS.), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1744 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH RASI‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONS.), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1744 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1744 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1744 (SCMR) (ALLAH RASI‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (CONS.), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rana Maqbool Ahmed Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.3 to 7.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore; dated 25th November, 1984 in Writ No. 5157 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)‑‑Improvement of land during pendency of case‑‑Effect‑‑High Court holding that mere fact that petitioner had improved the land after consolidation would not deprive the respondents of the legitimate entitlement to the land in dispute‑‑Approach of High Court held, was unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The dismissal of petitioner's Writ Petition by the High Court has led to this leave petition. The order of the learned. Member, Board of Revenue in a consolidation matter, was mainly challenged on the ground that improvement of the land by the petitioner during the pendency of the case, had not been taken into consideration. 2, The learned Judge in the High Court observed, that the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue was neither unlawful nor without jurisdiction and that "the mere fact that the petitioner has improved the laud after consolidation shall not deprive the respondents of the legitimate entitlement to the land in dispute"
3. The approach of the High Court is unexceptionable. The learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that it suffers from any infirmity legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./A‑527/S Leave refused.