2004 PLP 1526 (SCMR)
KARAM ALI (deceased) through legal heirs — Petitioners Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1526 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | KARAM ALI (deceased) through legal heirs — 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 2004 PLP 1526 (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 1526 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1526 (SCMR) (KARAM ALI (deceased) through legal heirs — 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
- ----S.10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199-- Consolidation scheme sanctioned by Consolidation Officer was re opened by the Board of Revenue---Petitioners challenged such order through Constitutional petition, but during its pendency, Consolidation Officer in pursuance of such order of Board of Revenue sanctioned the fresh scheme---Petitioners challenged fresh scheme in appeal before Collector failing which they challenged the scheme in Constitutional petition---High Court dismissed Constitutional petition for petitioners having availed remedy against fresh scheme---Contention of petitioners was that in appeal filed against fresh scheme, they could neither challenge order of Board of Revenue nor such appeal was an alternate remedy against an order of Board of Revenue---Validity---Respondents could not meet such contentions of the petitioners---Supreme Court converted petition into appeal, set aside impugned order being not sustainable and remanded the case to High Court for its decision on merits in accordance with law.
- Ejaz Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 2002.
- Muhammad Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court for, Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10-3-1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 9684 of 1998). Muhammad Naveed Shahryar, Advocate Supreme Court for, Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This petition is directed against order, dated 10-3-1999 passed by Lahore High Court whereby Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners against order, dated 23-11-1993 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab has been dismissed.
2. Through memo. dated 23-11-1993, Board of Revenue re-opened the case of consolidation in Mauza Raichand regarding, which consolidation scheme was sanctioned by Consolidation Officer on 28-6-1984. This order was challenged through Constitutional petition before the High Court but without any success.
3. During pendency of the said petition, however, in pursuance of the said order of the Board of Revenue, Consolidation Officer sanctioned fresh scheme on 28-5-1995. Petitioners filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, which was pending when writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court, which has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had sought the remedy against fresh scheme before the Collector in appeal, therefore, they should first avail the said remedy before invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction through the impugned judgment, against which leave is sought.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in appeal against fresh order of consolidation-made in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue, the petitioners could not challenge the said order. The said appeal was filed as abundant precaution to safeguard the rights of the petitioners in case the writ petition was dismissed. Otherwise. legally the said appeal was not alternate remedy against an order of Board of Revenue.
5. Learned counsel for the caveators has not been able to meet the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The order impugned in this petition is not sustainable, therefore, we convert this is petition into appeal, order, dated 10-3-1999 passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the said Court for decision of the Constitutional petition on merits in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. S.A.K./K-67/S Case remanded.