1989 PLP 1088 (SCMR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1088 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan. |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB 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 1088 (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 1088 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1088 (SCMR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and SAbid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, ,dated 15‑8‑1984 in W.P: No.3625/1984). ‑‑‑Ss.3, 4 & 10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l85(3)‑‑Consolidation Scheme‑‑Petitioner's plea that Board of Revenue, after admitting the matter to regular hearing and appointing a referee with consent of parties, should not have dismissed revision on ground of limitation laches, repelled‑‑Held, Board of Revenue dealt with the questions of merit also‑‑High Court took note of the question of delay which was noticed by Board of Revenue‑‑No case was thus made out either on merits or on law for interference by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in a consolidation matter against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners' Writ Petition. Learned counsel has contended that after admitting the matter to regular hearing and appointing a referee with the consent of the parties, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, could not have and should not have dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation/laches. We do not agree with him. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, dealt with the questions of merit also. A The learned Judge in the High Court took note of the question of delay which was noticed by the Member, Board of Revenue. In the circumstances of this case, no case has been made out either on merits or on law for interference by this! Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./G‑168/S Leave to appeal refused.