1992 PLP 136 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASUL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAHMOOD AHMAD and 42 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 136 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAHMOOD AHMAD and 42 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 136 (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 1992 PLP 136 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 136 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASUL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MAHMOOD AHMAD and 42 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Jahangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑11‑1990, passed in W.P. No. 4050 of 1990 of Lahore High Court, Lahore) ‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Confirmed consolidation scheme‑‑‑Minister for consolidation had no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere with the scheme sanctioned by the Authorities‑‑‑Proceedings taken by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) in pursuance of the order of the Minister, thus, were wholly void and unsustainable. Ahmad Khan's case P L D 1990 S C 1070 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑11‑1990 whereby the Writ Petition No. 4050/90 filed by the petitioner's side challenging the order dated 19‑9‑1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on review and order dated 17‑4‑1990 of the Member, Board of Revenue dismissing revision against the said order of the Additional Commissioner was allowed.
2. The brief facts are that consolidation scheme of village Fatowal Sulehrian was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, Sialkot, on 28‑9‑1986. Only six out of 771 land owners filed appeals before the Collector (Consolidation). The appeals were still pending when respondent No. 1 made an application before the Minister for Consolidation for setting aside the whole scheme. The Minister directed the Additional Commissioner to review the scheme in pursuance whereof he set aside the scheme vide order dated 19‑9‑1989 referred to above. This order was challenged before the Member, Board of Revenue by, filing a revision petition which was dismissed on 17‑4‑1990. Reyling on Ahmad Khan's case (PLD 1990 S C 1070) the learned Single Judge held that the Minister for consolidation had no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere with the scheme sanctioned by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the petition it has been stated that the Supreme Court authority cited by the learned Judge "had no application to the facts of the instant case, because there was no material before the learned High Court Judge to show that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was ever directed by the Minister concerned to pass any order one way or the other".
3. The contention is devoid of force. The very order of the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation contains a reference to the directions issued by the Minister for Consolidation. The learned Judge rightly held that the proceedings taken by the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation in pursuance of the order of the Minister were wholly void and unsustainable. There is no substance ii this petition and the same is dismissed. M.BA./G‑346/S Petition dismissed.