1990 PLP 543 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM ZOHRA and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 543 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM ZOHRA and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 543 (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 1990 PLP 543 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 543 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM ZOHRA and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑1‑1985 in Writ Petition No. 5443 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contention that in an earlier round of litigation respondents' petition was dismissed but matter was remanded on acceptance of petitioners' case, however the lower Consolidation Authorities did not give effect to dismissal of respondents' petition by Board of Revenue‑‑‑Contention was agitated before Board of Revenue in second round but after taking due note of it petitioners' revision was not accepted‑‑‑Board of Revenue having applied its mind to the merits of case came to definite conclusion that impugned orders were unexceptionable‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The unsuccessful writ petitioners in a consolidation matter have sought (cave to appeal; against the following order of dismissal of the writ petition:‑ "The petitioners are aggrieved by the withdrawal of two khasras from their allotments during the course of the consolidation of holdings. I am afraid the distribution of land is not a matter for the High Court to consider in writ jurisdiction. See Muhammad Hussain Monir v. Sikandar etc. (P L D 1974 S C 139), Ghulam Oadir v. M.B.R. (1970 S C M R 292) and Amir Din v. Muhammad Malik (1981 S C M R 804):' Learned counsel has not disputed the reasoning of the High Court in so far as the merits are concerned. However, he has contended that there were two matters pending before the Board of Revenue. 1n an earlier round of litigation the respondents' petition was dismissed. But the matter was remanded on acceptance of petitioners' case. However the lower Consolidation Authorities did not give effect to the dismissal of the respondents' petition by the Board of Revenue. He further argued that this question was agitated before the Board of Revenue in the second round but a learned Member after taking due note of it did not accept the petitioners' revision. After hearing the learned counsel in support of the technical plea raised by him we are satisfied that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue applied mind to the merits of the case and came to definite conclusion that the orders impugned before him were unexceptionable. We have no reason to differ with this assessment on merits and the High Court's approach in refusing to grant relief to the petitioners in writ jurisdiction is also beyond question. That being so, there is no merit in this petition, leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./M‑1062/S Leave refused.