1989 PLP 132 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 132 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of f 960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 132 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of f 960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 132 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 132 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and 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
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 2 June, 1982 in W.P. No. 2068 of 1981).
S. 10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Consolidation of holdings- Contentions that order affecting a large number of right-holders was passed by Member, Board of Revenue without notice to them and instead of taking proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 these were taken under the Land Revenue Act which were illegal and that the order was conjectural and ultra vires and as such was liable to be set aside--None of the contentions having been raised before High Court no case for interference by Supreme Court, held, was made out in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IOBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 2nd June, 1982 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the consolidation scheme for the area was sanctioned in 1972. However, certain objections were raised when the Member Board of Revenue toured the area in 1978. When under the orders of the Board of Revenue an inquiry was conducted it was found out that certain errors had taken place in the scheme which required a suo motu revision. Consequently the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu revisional powers set aside the earlier scheme and directed implementation of a fresh scheme. The order of the Additional Commissioner was challenged and the Member Board of Revenue set it aside on the ground that the circumstances did not justify the revision of the entire scheme after a case of ten years. It was against this order of the Member Board of Revenue (dated 24th January, 1982) that the petitioners filed writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the reason given by the Member Board of Revenue for setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner was justified because the consolidation scheme had been sanctioned ten years back whereunder the right holders had long been settled in their respective wandas. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the second revision decided by the Member Board of Revenue whereby the order of the Additional Commissioner was set aside had only involved 16 right holders but it was without notice to 641 right holders including the present petitioners who numbered
231. Thus, according to learned counsel the impugned order passed by the Member; Board of Revenue effected a large number of right holders. It was A next submitted that instead of taking proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, in the instant case action was taken under the Land Revenue Act which was illegal. It was finally argued that the impugned order of the Member Board of Revenue was conjectural and ultra vire the facts. Consequently it was liable to be set aside. We have heard learned counsel at some length. None of these grounds had been raised before the High Court. In our view therefore no case is made out for interference in the impugned order of the High Court. As a result this petition is dismissed.