1989 PLP 1790 (SCMR)
Syed QURBAN HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1790 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Syed QURBAN HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1790 (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 1790 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1790 (SCMR) (Syed QURBAN HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate, instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6th February, 1984 in Writ Petition No.474 of 1984 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioners were given about three times the area of their own land, in class 1V quality land against their claim of consolidation‑‑Petitioners improved the land in the very beginning‑‑After about two decades the area given to petitioners was withdrawn and their own land was returned‑‑Held, improvements were made in the very beginning and the petitioners had reaped benefits from extra land so improved for a long period as compared to their land which was much less; improvements made by them; if any thus got compensated by the income and benefit they had derived from additional land for such a long time‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
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' Constitutional petition. As stated by the learned counsel according to original claim of consolidation the petitioners were given about three times the area of their own land but it was a Class‑IV quality land. It happened in 1965. During the proceedings till now (the details of which are not necessary for the disposal of this petition), the area so given to the petitioners has been withdrawn and they have been returned their own land. Undoubtedly there might be some force in the technical arguments raised by the learned counsel particularly one with regard to the improvements made by the petitioners' side during the last more than two decades that the land initially granted to them. Remained with them. But the fact remains that their own land has been returned to them. Not only this, as stated by the learned counsel, the improvements having been made in the very beginning they have reaped benefits from about 100 Kanals of extra land so improved, for this long period. On the other hand if originally the land belonging to them would have remained with them for this period, the area thereof being much-less as compared to what has been taken away from them, they would have earned much less. Therefore, broadly speaking, the improvements made by them, if any, got compensated by the income and benefit they derived from the additional land for such a long period. After hearing the learned counsel on various questions involved in the case, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused. M.A.K./Q‑24/S Leave refused.