1989 PLP 1124(1) (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1124(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1124(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1124(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal 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: 1989 PLP 1124(1) (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asif Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Tanvir Ahmad Shaikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 30‑4‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. 1637 of 1982). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Findings of fact by Board of Revenue‑‑High Court was justified in not interfering with such findings in its Constitutional jurisdiction. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑There were two Ahatas bearing numbers 310 and 311 in Chak No.30/SB of Tehsil Sargodha. Ahata No.311 was allotted to the petitioner while Ahata No.310 was transferred to his wife. On appeal by respondents Nos.2 and 3, the Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case back to him for considering whether the petitioner was at all entitled to the transfer of a separate Ahata after his wife had been giver. Ahata No.310. After remand the Collector transferred Ahata No.311 to respondents Nos.2 and
3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner and a revision petition before the Board of Revenue but without any success. He then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the orders of the Revenue Authorities. A learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. While dismissing the claim of the petitioner to Ahata No.311 the Additional Commissioner whose order was upheld by the Board of Revenue, found that the two Ahatas were meant for storing manure and that the Ahata allotted to the petitioner's wife was sufficient to serve the needs of both husband and wife. This is a finding of fact and the High Court was justified in not interfering with it. The petition is dismissed. M.BA./A‑474/S Petition dismissed.