2004 PLP 944 (SCMR)
GHULAM SARWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMIR HUSSAIN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 944 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM SARWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMIR HUSSAIN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 944 (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 2004 PLP 944 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 944 (SCMR) (GHULAM SARWAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AMIR HUSSAIN and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11‑6‑2002 passed in Writ Petition No.20286 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Consolidation Scheme‑‑‑Time‑barred objections‑‑‑Petitioner challenged the scheme before the consolidation forum after lapse of more than five years‑‑Revenue authorities dismissed the objections and the orders passed by Revenue authorities were maintained by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Plea raised by the petitioner was that he was not given opportunity of hearing‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Delay defeats equities and law helps the vigilant and not the indolent‑‑‑Despite uncondonable delay in, seeking remedy before the competent forums, the authorities after considering the merits of the case found the case of the petitioner to be devoid of any merit‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the judgment passed by High Court and the orders passed by Revenue authorities ‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th July, 2002. MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11‑6‑2002, whereby Writ Petition No.20286 of 199 filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of village Choa Mal Tehsil and District Gujrat was confirmed in February, 1988. The petitioner challenged the scheme in 1993 through an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) Gujrat, but the same was dismissed on 7‑6‑1993 being barred by limitation. He then filed revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala which was also dismissed vide his order dated 26‑5‑1996. He further challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala before the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Lahore which also met the same fate vide order dated 5‑3‑1997 against which the review petition filed by him was also dismissed on 3‑12‑1997. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20286 of 1998 which was dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide his judgment dated 11‑6‑2002, impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing and thus was condemned unheard which was against the principles of natural justice and equity. He further contended that the forums below did not advert to the merits of the case and dismissed appeal/revision on the sole ground of limitation.
4. We have hard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner was condemned unheard is misconceived as he himself challenged the scheme before the Consolidation forums after the lapse of more than five years and after giving him full opportunity of hearing, his appeal/revision were dismissed by the competent forums. It is well‑settled maxim that delay defeats equities and law helps the vigilant and not the indolent. Despite uncondonable delay in seeking remedy before the competent forums, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, after considering the merits of the case found the case of the petitioner to be devoid of any merit.
5. In view of the above, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment of the High Court and the orders of forums below.
6. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./G‑149/S Petition dismissed