2020 PLP 34 (CLCN)
MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III), BOR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 34 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III), BOR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 34 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 34 (CLCN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 34 (CLCN) (MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III), BOR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmad Shahid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Petitioner assailed order of revenue authorities whereby his possession on the disputed land was declared to be illegal
Inquiry conducted by the District Collector, declared the petitioner to be a trespasser in the land of the respondent
Findings of facts were recorded by the forums below which were competent to decide the matter, keeping in view the material available with them
Disputed facts could not be called in question before the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction
High Court ordinarily did not interfere in the findings of facts recorded by the courts below unless some illegality, perversity and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction was floating on the surface of record
Claim of petitioner required resolution of disputed facts and the petitioner had failed to show any glaring illegality on the record, which could be determined without recording of evidence
Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J.
Through this constitution petition the petitioner has called in question order dated 13.06.2018, 14.01.2019, 26.02.2019, 11.06.2019 and 06.08.2019 passed by respondents Nos.1 to 5-Revenue Authorities up to the Board of Revenue on the ground that the same do not properly decide the dispute between the parties and are against the facts of the case and law on the subject, hence the same are liable to be set aside.
2. Perusal of record shows that through an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, Fakhar-uz- Zaman son of Ghulam Shabir requested that on 15.11.2018 Messrs Munir Ahmad etc. illegally and forcibly occupied mango orchard owned by his father Ghulam Shabir and cut down mango trees and took them away. The Deputy Commissioner after visiting the site in order to resolve the dispute modified the wandas vide order dated 14.01.2019. That order was assailed by Munir Ahmad through appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan which was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2019 against which he filed revision before the Board of Revenue, Punjab which has also been dismissed on 06.08.2019. The dispute relating to Khasra No.128/16 and 17 is pending for quite some time which is a mango orchard. There is concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Revenue Authorities below that the petitioner's possession on the said land was illegal and such unlawful act of the petitioner was proved in an inquiry conducted by the District Collector, wherein he declared the petitioner as a trespasser in the land of the respondent. These findings of facts were recorded by the learned forums below which are competent to decide the matter by keeping in view the material available with them. The petitioner disputes the said findings and claims the same to be erroneous and incorrect, however, determination of disputed facts cannot be called in question before this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction as this Court ordinarily does not interfere in the finding of facts recorded by the learned Courts below unless some illegality, perversity and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction is floating on the surface of record whereas the claim of the petitioner requires recording of evidence and resolution of disputed facts and the petitioner has failed to show any illegality glaring on the record, which could be determined without recording of evidence or would not require deeper appreciation of disputed facts, therefore, this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not maintainable, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. SA/M-28/L Petition dismissed.