1989 PLP 1086 (SCMR)
BAHAWAL BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1086 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afial Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BAHAWAL BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1086 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1086 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afial 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 1086 (SCMR) (BAHAWAL BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yousaf Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 3‑7‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in W.P. No.468 of 1982). ‑‑‑Ss.3, 4 & 10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Consolidation Scheme‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition against Consolidation Scheme, disposed of by High Court with observation that regarding Consolidation Scheme, there was an agreement of landholders including petitioner‑‑Petitioner's plea that his Constitutional petition should have been granted in so far as compensation for date‑trees was concerned and that although there was agreement with regard to Consolidation Scheme with other persons but not with one person viz. the `person concerned' repelled‑‑Record showed that no reservation was made in the agreement in question with regard to `person concerned' or on the point of compensation for date‑trees‑‑High Court was . justified in refusing relief to petitioner in circumstances‑‑Petition being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to' appeal has been sought in a consolidation matter against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's writ petition. Learned counsel contended that notwithstanding the observations of the High Court regarding an agreement between the land‑holders including the, petitioner, writ should have been granted in so far as the compensation for the date‑trees, is concerned. He also urged that although there was an agreement with other persons but on the point raised, there was no agreement with Muhammad Shafi, the person concerned. After hearing him and examining the record, we do not agree with him on any of the points. No reservation was made in the agreement in question with regard to Muhammad Shafi or on the point of compensation for date‑trees. In the circumstances of this case, the learned Judge in the High Court was justified in refusing relief to the petitioner. That being so, this petition is dismissed. AA./B‑89/S Petition dismissed.