1989 PLP 1320 (SCMR)
MUMTAZ ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1320 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUMTAZ ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (11973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1320 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (11973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1320 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid iqbal 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 1320 (SCMR) (MUMTAZ ALI and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 15‑11‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in W.P. No.436 of 1988). ‑‑‑Arts.185(3) b, 199‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Concurrent findings of fact based on proper consideration of all material on record was rightly not interfered with by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal in this petition is sought by the petitioners against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15‑11‑1988, whereby their Constitutional petition against the findings of the respondents Nos: 1 to 3 dated 29‑10‑1986, 27‑5‑1986 and 10‑11‑1980, respectively, was dismissed by the impugned judgment. The dispute between the parties relates to the allotment of a shop site, situate in Chak No.2/1‑AL, Tehsil and District Okara which was allotted to one Ibrahim. The said Ibrahim cancelled this site being not interested in running the shop business. Respondent Abdul Jabbar applied on 11‑2‑1980 for the allotment of the said area of the shop to respondent No. 3 who after obtaining reports from the revenue officials allotted the same to Abdul Jabbar respondent No. 4, vide order dated 10‑11‑1980. The petitioners challenged the said order in appeal before respondent No. 2, which failed vide order dated 27‑5‑1986. The revision petition of the petitioners before the respondent No. 1 also dismissed vide order dated 29‑10‑1986. They filed Constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A learned Single Judge of the High Court after detailed scrutiny held that the choice of the suitable tenant is to be made by the competent authority, the petitioners being agriculturists were ineligible to seek allotment of the shop site. The fact that they are in unauthorized possession, fails to furnish them any right to seek allotment. The learned Single Judge vide his order dated 15‑11‑1988 dismissed the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners before us contended that there was an Ahata measuring 8 marlas meant for allotment to shopkeepers for running shops and business over there. The same was allotted to one Muhammad Ibrahim, who instead of constructing the shop on it, transferred the same to the petitioners for some cash consideration. Although the petitioners were in possession the said area was wrongly allotted to respondent No.
4. Now the question involved in this petition, whether the petitioners are in possession of the disputed Ahata, is a question of fact and not relating to the question of law which 1 has already been adjudicated upon by the learned Courts below in their concurrent findings, after proper consideration of all material on record, which was rightly not interfered in the writ petition by the learned High Court. We, therefore, find no force in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. M.B.A./M‑879/S Petition dismissed.