2003 PLP 1304 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN — Appellant Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVNEUE, PUNJAB and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1304 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN — Appellant Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVNEUE, PUNJAB and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1304 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1304 (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: 2003 PLP 1304 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN — Appellant Versus MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVNEUE, PUNJAB and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masood Akhtar Advocate-on-Record, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
- Ch. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.5 (in all Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 42.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned petitions as the same arise out of a common judgment, involving similar question of law and fact.
2. These petitions are directed against common judgment of Lahore High Court whereby Constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. Petitioners were given land in Consolidation Scheme confirmed on 20-6-1990 against land purchased by them measuring 264 Kanals, 11 Marlas through registered sale-deed, dated 17-11-1974 in equal shares. Consolidation Officer, while sanctioning the scheme, at the cost of Abdul Qadir-respondent No.5, allotted the land in excess of the entitlement of the petitioners on account of Beshi to which they were not entitled.
3. Abdul Qadir-respondent No. 5 feeling aggrieved filed an appeal against the said Consolidation Scheme before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), which was accepted through order, dated , 21-11-1992 and land measuring 27 Kanals, 12 Marlas, allotted to the petitioners in excess of their entitlement on ,account of Beshi was withdrawn from them and given to Abdul Qadir-respondent No.5 as he had been allotted land less than his entitlement.
4. Petitioners filed separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) against this order, which were dismissed on 21-4-1993, against which revision petitions filed before the Board of Revenue also failed on 6-10-1999. Constitutional petitions challenging dismissal orders filed by them have been dismissed through the ,impugned judgment against which leave is sought.
5. Before the High Court it appears that stress of the petitioners mainly was to the effect that at the time of sanction of the scheme Abdul Qadir respondent No.5 did not raise any objection, rather agreed to the allotment of excess land in favour of the petitioners.
6. This ground was found to be merit less. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that the petitioners were entitled to any land in excess of their entitlement on account of Beshi and finding of fact recorded by all the Courts below suffer from any illegality.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit,? in these petitions, which are hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.H./M-525/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.