1989SCMR319 (PLP)
ALAM and others-:Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR319 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ALAM and others-:Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR319 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR319 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR319 (PLP) (ALAM and others-:Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners,
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
- Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners,
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 15th June, 1982 in W.P. No. 2164 of 1982). West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (vi or 1960)
S. 6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Adjustment in Khatas of parties made by Member, Board.of Revenue; with consent of parties--Petitioner, however, challenged order of Board of Revenue in Constitutional petition before High Court and pleaded that he had not given his consent and in support submitted his affidavit--High Court dismissed writ petition for reason that affidavit submitted by petitioner when placed alongwith order passed by Board of Revenue could not be given greater weight than judicial order passed by Board of Revenue--Conclusion arrived at by High Court, upheld--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
77 West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (vi or 1960)
S. 6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Adjustment in Khatas of parties made by Member, Boar ?.of Revenue; with consent of parties‑‑Petitioner, however, challenged order of Board of Revenue in Constitutional petition before High Court and pleaded that he had not given his consent and in support submitted his affidavit‑‑High Court dismissed writ petition for reason that affidavit submitted by petitioner when placed alongwith order passed by Board of Revenue could not be given greater weight than judicial order passed by Board of Revenue‑‑Conclusion arrived at by High Court, upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners, Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15th June, 1982 whereby the writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed. The position in this case is that in a consolidation matter the Member, Board of Revenue made certain adjustments in the Khatas of the parties with mutual agreement of both the sides. However, when the order of the Member, Board of Revenue was challenged before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, it was pleaded that the petitioners had not given their consent and in support of this plea the petitioners submitted their affidavits. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners for the reason that the affidavits submitted by the petitioners when placed alongwith the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue could not be given greater weight than the judicial order passed by the Board of Revenue. After hearing learned counsel we do not find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. In that view of the matter there is no 113 substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./A‑324/S Petition dismissed.