2004 PLP 674 (SCMR)
ABDUL QADOOS — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 674 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL QADOOS — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act (XIX of 1964) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 674 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act (XIX of 1964) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 674 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 674 (SCMR) (ABDUL QADOOS — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Zahoor Nasir, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 3 to 8.
- Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.-G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 2003.
- 3. Ch Muhammad Zahoor Nasir, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned High Court did not consider the case in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment is not maintainable.
- 4. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar learned A.A.-G. appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, learned. Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.3 to 8 supported the impugned judgment and controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21-3-2002, passed in Writ Petition No.3227 of 1993).
S. 10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199-- Constitutional petition
Redemption of: mortgaged land
Land mortgaged 31 years ago was ordered to be redeemed by Collector on payment of mortgage money
Findings of fact recorded by Additional Commissioner were upheld by Board of Revenue and maintained by High Court
Impugned judgment did not suffer from misreading or non -reading or misconstruction of law
Supreme Court dismissed appeal and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Zahoor Nasir, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 3 to
8. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.-G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Date of hearing: 16th December, 2003. SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21-3-2002, passed in Writ Petition No.3227 of 1993.
2. The facts, in brief, are that mortgaged land measuring 16 Kanals comprising Khasra Nos.3579 and 3638, Khewat Nos.543/538/401, situated in Mauza Khudian, Tehsil and District Kasur, in favour of the petitioner in 1960 for a sum of Rs.700 was redeemed on payment of Rs.700 in favour of the contesting respondents on their application under section 10 of the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Land Act, 1964, vide order dated 29-1-1991 passed by the Collector. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal and thereafter revision, which were dismissed by the Commissioner Lahore Division and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 17-7-1991 and 14-3-1993, respectively. He assailed the aforesaid orders by filing Constitutional petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment dated 21-3-2002. Hence, this petition.
3. Ch Muhammad Zahoor Nasir, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned High Court did not consider the case in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment is not maintainable.
4. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar learned A.A.-G. appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, learned. Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.3 to 8 supported the impugned judgment and controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner, which were upheld by the Member, Board of Revenue and maintained by the learned High Court. In the impugned judgment we do not find misreading or non-reading or misconstruction of law. The impugned judgment is entirely based on the proper appreciation of facts as well as the legal aspects of the case and does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that this petition is without merit and substance, which is dismissed alongwith the listed application and leave to appeal refused. S.A.K./A-22/S Leave refused.