1989SCMR1714 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and 6 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1714 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid IqbalJJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and 6 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1714 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR1714 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid IqbalJJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1714 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and 6 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Atta‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
1988. (On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 30th October, 1984 in W.P.No. 4762 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Order passed by Member, Board of Revenue was neither illegal nor without jurisdiction‑‑Contention that Member, Board of Revenue had ignored the principles of Consolidation of Holdings by taking away the property which was in possession of the petitioners related to facts and merits of the case which was raised before the High Court and was adequately and properly dealt with‑‑No justification for interference with the findings of fact had been made out‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This leave to appeal petition is directed against the dismissal, by the High Court, of petitioners' Writ Petition.
2. It had arisen out of the modification, by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, of an order passed by an Additional Commissioner. The case has arisen out of a consolidation matter.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, with regard to the grievance made before the High Court, we asked him; whether, the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in this case is without jurisdiction, or in any way illegal. He answered in the negative. However, he further submitted that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has ignored the principles of Consolidation of Holdings by taking away the property which was in possession of the A petitioners. This very question, which undoubtedly relates to the facts and merits of the case, having been raised before the High Court, was adequately and properly dealt with. No justification has been made out for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact.
4. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.A.K./M‑937/S Leave refused.