1989 PLP 1676 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1676 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Majaddid, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1676 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1676 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ghulam Majaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1676 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA‑‑Petitioner Versus BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art.212(3)‑‑Civil service‑‑Petitioners repeating the contentions raised before Tribunal which had rightly been repelled‑‑No question of law of public importance called for detailed examination‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Allah Ditta, ex‑Oanoongo and Zafar lqbal ex‑Patwari helped Ghulam Sarwar son of Jamal Din, resident of Chak 25/BC, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur in obtaining 112 kanals of land on five years lease scheme on 29‑1‑1980. The part played by the former was that he prepared a fictitious report in favour of Ghulam Sarwar whereas the latter showed the land as cultivated in Rabi 1981. Allah Ditta inspected the site and confirmed the Girdawari. As a result of connivance of both Patta Malkeeat was issued in favour of Ghulam Sarwar.
2. An application was moved before the Commissioner, Bahawalpur in which it was mentioned that the land given to Ghulam Sarwar was not a cultivating piece of land but most of its portion was under Highway going from Bahawalpur to Yazman. Most of it were sand dunes. Number of persons built houses and a very small portion of the land was considered as cultivated area. Enquiry was conducted. Both the revenue officials were dismissed from service. Both of them filed separate appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The appeals were dismissed by separate judgments on 19‑12‑1983.
3. Allah Ditta and Zafar lqbal have filed separate petitions for leave to appeal. Although their appeals had been dismissed by separate judgments but as the facts which led to the dismissal of both being common, these petitions are being decided by this order.
4. While dealing with the appeal of Allah Ditta, the Tribunal examined the legal points as well as factual position and also referred in the judgment the order of the Commissioner. Being satisfied that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as well as Commissioner were in accordance with law, the appeal filed by Allah Ditta was dismissed in limine.
5. Similarly, the case of Zafar lqbal was thoroughly examined. Both the legal and the factual position was examined in detail. The Tribunal was satisfied that petitioner Zafar lqbal had been given opportunity to defend and plead his case and in neither case there was violation of any provision of law or rules framed there under.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners who repeated the contentions raised before the Tribunal in both the cases which had been rightly repelled. Learned counsel was unable to convince us that there is any question of law of public importance which calls for detailed examination by this Court. We, therefore, decline to grant leave to appeal. Both the petitions are dismissed accordingly. M.A.K./A‑538/S Leave refused.