1990 PLP 537 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1990 PLP 537 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Mullah and Javid lqhal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 537 (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 1990 PLP 537 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Mullah and Javid lqhal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 537 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mchtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th March,1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 15th December, 1984 of the Lahore High Cort in Writ Petition No. 1755/1984). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Consolidation of holdings‑‑‑Petitioners' grievance in the High Court met with an assertion by the Board of Revenue made in a report sent to the High Court in reply to the petitioners' Constitutional petition, that the petitioners even by that stage were holding land in excess of their entitlement‑‑‑Petitioners' plea before Supreme Court was that High Court should not have taken note of something which was found in a report to the High Court and not in the orders impugned before it‑‑ No inconsistency between the order and the said report existed‑‑‑High Court was thus right in holding that no case had been made out for exercise of discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of petitioners‑‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mchtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th March,1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against disimissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Writ Petition which had arisen out of a case of consolidation of holdings. The petitioners' grievance in the High Court met with an assertion by the Board of Revenue in a report sent to the High Court in reply to the petitioners' constitutional petition; stating therein that the petitioners were even by that stage holding 2 kanals and 2 marlas in excess of their entitlement: When confronted with this situation learned counsel tried to explain that the High Court should not have taken note of something which was found in a report to the High Court and not in the orders impugned before it. We having perused the report are of the view that there is no inconsistency between the order and the report. After hearing him on this aspect of reply we agree with the High Court that no case had been made out for exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./M‑949/S Leave refused.