1990 PLP 1010 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, COLONIES and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1010 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afiah Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, COLONIES and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Grow More Food Scheme‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1010 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Grow More Food Scheme‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1010 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afiah Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1010 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, COLONIES and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- O.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 1‑12‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in W.P. No. 690/69). ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Allotment of State land to petitioner, terminated by Collector on the ground that he was not qualified to receive proprietary rights therein‑‑‑Petitioner's appeal before Commissioner was dismissed as barred by time‑‑‑Petitioner's time‑barred revision before Board of Revenue was also dismissed as also his Constitutional petition wherein he had challenged legality of the orders of Revenue Authorities‑‑‑One of the grounds which had prevailed with the High Court in dismissing Constitutional petition was that the petitioner had not been vigilant in pursuing his remedy‑‑‑Not only petitioners appeal and revision were out of time but he took almost two years in approaching the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. after dismissal of his revision by the Board of Revenue‑‑‑Petitioner's contention that the order of cancellation of allotment was passed by the Collector in his absence and without notice to him and thus he could not prefer appeal in time, was taken note of by the High Court but was rejected on the ground that even if date of petitioner's knowledge about the cancellation of allotment was taken as a starting point for limitation there was nothing on the record to show that he had preferred his appeal within the prescribed period beginning from that date‑‑‑Satisfactory explanation was also lacking as to why petitioner did not file his revision petition before the Board of Revenue within time and took almost two years in approaching the High Court‑‑‑Not a fit case for interference by the Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
O.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 21st October, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 1‑12‑1985 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Constitution petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was allotted State land under the Grow More Food Scheme on 17‑12‑1956. He obtained possession of the land on 17‑1‑1957. By an order dated 29‑3‑1963, the Collector terminated the allotment on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified to receive proprietary rights . therein. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. It was dismissed on 25‑5‑1966 by the Additional Commissioner as barred by time. Immediately thereafter the land covered by the allotment was given to respondents No.4 to 8 under a permanent scheme framed for the settlement of Islamabad evictees. However that may be, the petitioner preferred a time‑barred revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the termination of his allotment. This was dismissed on 14‑6‑1967 again on the ground of limitation. On 17‑5‑1969, the petitioner filed a Constitution petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the orders of the Revenue authorities. This too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. One of the grounds which has prevailed with the High Court in dismissing the Constitution petition is that the petitioner has not been vigilant in pursuing his remedy. Thus, not only his appeal and revision petition before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were out of time but he took almost two years in approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction after the dismissal of his revision petition by the Board of Revenue.
4. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the order of cancellation of allotment was passed by the Collector in his absence and without notice to him and therefore he could not prefer the appeal before the Commissioner within the specified period. The High Court took notice of this contention but rejected it with the observation that even if the date of his knowledge about the cancellation of his allotment was taken as a starting point for limitation there was nothing on the record to show that he had preferred his appeal within the prescribed period beginning from the said date. However that may be, there is no satisfactory explanation why the petitioner did not file his revision petition before the Board of Revenue within time or took almost two years in approaching the High Court. This is thus not a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused. A.A./M‑1162/S Leave refused.