1987 PLP 319 (SCMR)
AMANULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus The MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 319 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AMANULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus The MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 319 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 319 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 319 (SCMR) (AMANULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus The MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mushtaq Raj, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Ali Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 to 13.
- Date of hearing: 9th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑5‑1986 in Writ Petition No. 2363 of 1985) . ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, refusal of‑‑Petitioner holding two plots of land though entitled to retain only one‑‑Petitioner thus not coming to Supreme Court with clean hands‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 26‑5‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners.
2. There are two plots of 8 Marlas each bearing Khasra Nos. 1181 and 1184 in Mauza Gakhar Mandi of Tehsil Wazirabad. Both these plots were owned by Muhammad Sharif, respondent No. 2, and Muhammad Ali, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos 3 to
13. By a registered deed, dated 21‑3‑1970 the petitioner purchased one of these plots from Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Ali. Although in the sale‑deed the plot purchased by the petitioner was described to be the one bearing Khasra No.1184 the case of respondents Nos. 2 to 13 was that the plot in fact sold by them bore Khasra No. 1181. Their assertion in this regard was supported by the fact that after purchasing the plot the petitioner had constructed his house on Khasra No. 1181. During the course of the consolidation proceedings the revenue authorities upheld the assertion of respondents Nos. 2 to 13 and allocated Khasra No. 1181 to the petitioner. The High Court in writ jurisdiction declined to interfere with this finding.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that as the two Khasra numbers fell within the Municipal limits of Gakhar Mandi the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to extend their operations to include these Khasra numbers also.
4. It is not necessary for us to examine the contention of the petitioner for clearly he has not come to the Court with clean hands. He has been in possession of both the plots even though he purchased only one of them. He has not surrendered the possession of the plots which according to his own showing he had not purchased under this sale‑deed of 21‑3‑1970. Although he did allege at one stage that he had entered into an oral agreement with the owners for purchase of the other plot also it was merely a bald assertion which he did not care to substantiate. Since the petitioner himself is holding on to two plots when he is entitled to retain only one, we would refuse to grant leave to appeal to him. M. I. Petition dismissed.