1989SCMR1817 (PLP)
ALLAH REHMAN and others Petitioners Versus AMTUL QAYYUM and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1817 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Sood Jan,JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH REHMAN and others Petitioners Versus AMTUL QAYYUM and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1817 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR1817 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Sood Jan,JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1817 (PLP) (ALLAH REHMAN and others Petitioners Versus AMTUL QAYYUM and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejar Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 161h April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 22‑1‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 3843 of 1987). ‑‑‑S. 13 ‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Adjustments in consolidation scheme‑‑Petitioners, although deprived of certain fields in Nian area yet were not given less land than their actual entitlements‑‑Orders made by Consolidation Authorities with regard to allocation of land were not fit matters to be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction as per rule laid down by Supreme Court G in Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikander reported as P L D 1974 S C 139 High Court was thus justified in dismissing Constitutional petition‑‑Leave refused. Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar P L D 1974 SC 139 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of their constitution petition by the High Court whereby it declined to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue affirming the order of the Additional Commissioner who had made certain adjustments in the consolidation scheme as a result of which the petitioners were deprived of certain fields falling in Nian area. It was not their case that as a result of these adjustments they were given less land than their actual entitlements. It has already been held by this Court that the orders made by the Consolidation authorities with regard to allocation of land a are not fit matters which can be agitated in writ jurisdiction; sec Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandcr (PLD 1974 S.C. 139). The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the Constitution petition of the petitioners. Leave is refused. A.A./A‑556/S Leave refused.