1989 PLP 1259 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD LATIF and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1259 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal ZuIlah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1259 (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 1989 PLP 1259 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal ZuIlah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1259 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD LATIF and others Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Muhammad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 6‑3‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, in W.P. No.5700 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.24‑‑Attestation of mutation without sanction of Consolidation Officer would be violation of S.24.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.24‑‑Attestation of mutation without sanction of Consolidation Officer would be violation of S.24. Ghulam Muhammad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑During the pendency of the Consolidation proceedings in the village, the petitioner managed to get two mutations attested whereby he was stated to have purchased land from respondent No.1 These mutations were ignored by the Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing the Scheme. The petitioner fled an appeal before the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal and allotted some additional land to the petitioner on the basis of the said mutations. Respondent No.l filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner alleging that he had not sold any land to the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue but failed. He then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but again met with no success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The petition is clearly without any merit. Section 24, Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 stood in the petitioner's way. This section reads as under‑‑ " When an application for the consolidation of holdings has been made, no land‑owner * * * * * " * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * upon whom the scheme will be binding shall have power, without the sanction of the trial Consolidation Officer, during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, to transfer or otherwise deal with any part of his holding so as to affect the rights of any other land‑owner under the scheme of consolidation." The mutations were attested without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer and this violated the above provision. Therefore the petitioner could not draw any benefit from them. The petition is dismissed. M.B.A./M‑895/S Petition dismissed.