1983 PLP 562 (SCMR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W. F. P. AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 562 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W. F. P. AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 562 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 562 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 562 (SCMR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W. F. P. AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Younas Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 11th April, 1983.
- Mian Younas Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 28-3-:983 of the Peshawar High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 226 of 1982).
Art. 185(3) read with Art. 199-Order of High Court declining to interfere with concurrent finding of fact of Revenue Authorities in writ jurisdiction-Held, justified-Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI J.‑The petitioners held lease of some land from respondents 5 and 6 by an agreement dated 8‑10‑1970.. The lease was for three years from Kharif 1971 to Rabi 1974. On the expiry of the lease, the said respondents brought a suit for recovery of arrears of lease money and for the ejectment of the petitioners, which was decreed in their favour by the Assistant Collector, Dargai, upon a finding that the petitioners were defaulters. The petitioners challenged the order of their ejectment up to the Board of Revenue but having failed throughout, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court. Their case was that as they had paid Rs. 3,000 to the respondents as security, they could not be held defaulters. The learned Judges, however, declined to interfere with the deci sion of the Revenue authorities on a question of fact regarding the default in. the payment of lease money.
2. There is nothing in the lease agreement to suggest that the advanced of Rs. 3,000 paid, was adjustable towards arrears of lease money. In the circumstance, the High Court was justified in not interfering with a concurrent finding of fact. We see no good ground to grant leave to appeal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.