P L D 1964 W (PLP)
DALAL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Khan FARZIND ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DALAL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Khan FARZIND ALI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Consolidation of holdings |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 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 1964 W (PLP)?
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: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (DALAL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Khan FARZIND ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Feroze Din and Ch. Manzoor Hussain for Petitioners.
- Mahmud‑ul‑Haq Thanvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Party already holding land in compact block‑Not to be disturbed in order to give another party one compact block instead of two.
Judgment & Decree
‑Party already holding land in compact block‑Not to be disturbed in order to give another party one compact block instead of two. Ch. Feroze Din and Ch. Manzoor Hussain for Petitioners. Mahmud‑ul‑Haq Thanvi for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 7th of February 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent.
2. Facts of the case are that the A. C. O. proposed to give land to the petitioners in square No. 58 in lieu of their land in square No. 61 and
62. The petitioners did not agree and the case was, therefore, referred to the A. D. C. who accepted the objection of the petitioners and allowed them to retain their original holdings. The respondent went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner who accepted the appeal and restored the original proposal made by the A. C. O.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. The learned Additional Commissioner was under a misapprehension, that before the A. C. O. the petitioners or their representative had agreed to have land in square No.
58. It is also borne out by the record that the land in square No. 58 is inferior although the learned counsel for the respondent says that it is a better quality: Even if I concede the point urged by the learned counsel for the respondent the respondent can Have better quality of land and let petitioners to be contended with having their original land of inferior quality. Before consolidation the respondent had land in 5 blocks, According to the proposals made by the A. D. C. he would have land in 2 blocks. There appears to be no justification for depriving the petitioners of their original holding, which is already in a compact block, for giving land to the respondent in one compact block instead of two. In these circumstances I accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that the orders given by the Additional Deputy Commissioner shall be implemented. S. Q. Revision accepted.