P L D 1965 (W (PLP)
AMIR DIN‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | AMIR DIN‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN and another‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Consolidation of holdings |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Consolidation of holdings as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 (W (PLP) (AMIR DIN‑Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafique Ahmad Bajwa assisted by Ch. Muhammad Siddique for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Irregularities during consolidation operations‑Operations ordered to be taken afresh‑Possession of landowners acquired under old scheme, however, not to be disturbed merely to bring mortgagee and proprietary, areas together. Respondent No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑Irregularities during consolidation operations‑Operations ordered to be taken afresh‑Possession of landowners acquired under old scheme, however, not to be disturbed merely to bring mortgagee and proprietary, areas together. Rafique Ahmad Bajwa assisted by Ch. Muhammad Siddique for Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 in person. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 24th of August 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore, whereby he rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that with his own consent the peti tioner was given land by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. He, however, went in appeal to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation). Nine other persons also preferred appeals to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) who found that a number of irregularities had been committed and ordered that the Consolidation of this village should be taken afresh. Certain other persons went in revision to the Additional Com missioner (Consolidation) praying that the consolidation scheme should be allowed to stand. This request was rejected. The petitioner has come in second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. In the first instance the petitioner did not file any revision against the order of remand passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) and in the second I don't find any justification for any interference because it has been established that there were a number of irregularities committed during the consolidation operations. The Consolidation operation has, therefore, to be taken afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, raised a very important point and has contended that attempts are being made to have Consolidation afresh so that the landowners might get the proprietary and mortgagee areas at one and the same place. If Consolidation operations are stated for this purpose, they would not be justified. A safeguard is, therefore to be provided. In these circumstances, while I reject the revision petition and direct that the consolidation operations should be re‑started, I also lay down that the possession of the landowners given under the old scheme shall not be disturbed merely to bring the mortgagee and proprietary areas together. S. Q. Petition rejected.