2011 PLP 1482 (YLR)
DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus E.D.O. (R) — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1482 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus E.D.O. (R) — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1482 (YLR)?
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 2011 PLP 1482 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Tariq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1482 (YLR) (DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus E.D.O. (R) — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9-A, 11 & 13
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional peti tion
Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) and had prayed that possession of suit-land be restored to him
Impugned order was passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) which was further appealable before the Member Board of Revenue, but the petitioner had not adopted the remedy provided to him under the law; and instead approached High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction
Number of disputed questions were involved between the parties including the question of restoration of possession which could not be agitated in the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court; nor the matter of possession could be decided particularly when the petitioner had given up the available alternate remedy
Constitutional petition was dismissed. 2000 MLD 732 and 2001 CLC 1673 ref.
Judgment & Decree
C.M.A. No.2794 of 2009. CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and writ petition is restored to its original number. MAIN CASE
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 14-1-2005 respondents Nos. 3 to 9 forcibly took over the possession of land of the petitioner which is neither part of any consolidation process nor the petitioner was made party in appeal filed with the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter the Executive District Officer illegally handed over the land belonging to the petitioner to respondents Nos.6 to 9 in connivance with respondents Nos.3 to 5 therefore, writ petition be accepted, and the impugned Dakhal, dated 14-1-2005 which was prepared without knowledge of petitioner be declared null and void-and the possession of land illegally taken from the petitioner be restored. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 2000 MLD 732 and 2001 CLC 1673.
3. The case was repeatedly called and despite notice respondents have not entered their appearance, hence they are proceeded against ex parte.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-1-2005 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Sargodha and has prayed that possession of suit-land be restored to him.
6. The impugned order dated 14-1-2005 was passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) Sargodha which was further appealable before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore but the petitioner has not adopted the remedy provided to him under the law and instead approached this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The record reveals that a number of disputed questions are involved between the parties including the question of restoration of possession which could not be agitated in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court nor the matter of possession could be decided particularly when the petitioner gave up his available alternate remedy. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. H.B.T./D-12/L Petition dismissed.