1981 PLP 217 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJEED-Petitioner Versus ATA ILLAHI ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 217 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED-Petitioner Versus ATA ILLAHI ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Consolidation of holdings |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 217 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Consolidation of holdings as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 217 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 217 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJEED-Petitioner Versus ATA ILLAHI ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbul Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Date of hearing : 17th November, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 22-4-1979, in R. A. 24)77).
Land owner not shown to have suffered in any manner in course of consolidation by allotment of new land against his original land Held, such land owner cannot have any grievance against consolidation proceedings.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-It is not necessary to mention the lengthy details of the litigation through which this case passed and for our purpose it will be sufficient to state that the petitioner is aggrieved by allotment of certain land which has ultimately been given to him in the course of consolidation proceedings in village Kot Hassan, tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, by the learned Member Board of Revenue by his order dated 30-8-1975. We asked the learned counsel as to what practical or other loss the petitioner has suffered by an allotment of new land in comparison with the earlier land which he originally possessed before consolidation. Learned counsel very frankly submitted that he was not in a position to point out any loss of the type mentioned above. This will show that as the petitioner has not suffered in any manner in the course of consolidation b an allotment of new land, as against his original land, therefore, in our opinion this is not a fit case for which leave to appeal should be granted.
2. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.