P L D 1964 W (PLP)
SATTARA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SATTARA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Consolidation of holdings, (b) Revision |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Consolidation of holdings, (b) Revision as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (SATTARA AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Saleem Chaudhary for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
‑Concurrent finding of three Consolidation Autho rities below‑Not interfered with in second revision. M. Saleem Chaudhary for Petitioners. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 28th of July 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Con solidation), Sargodha, whereby he rejected the revision of the petitioners. The facts of the case are that with the consent of Sattara petitioner his father was given land of his own choice. Later on the petitioners went in appeal to the Additional Deputy Commis sioner (Consolidation), but it was rejected they then went in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) which was also dismissed. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. His first contention is that Bahara was not present at that time when the Register Taqsim was thumb‑marked by Sattara son of the right‑holder and therefore, his thumb -impression should not amount to Bahara's consent. In consoli dation proceedings it is not necessary to get the consent of all the co‑sharers. If a co‑sharer or one's real relative is present, it is considered to be sufficient. I have also examined whether the interests of the petitioners have been adversely effected. The learned counsel complains about the withdrawal of 4 killas from Square No.
652. The petitioners had a share in the land near the Abadi. They have now been satisfied by giving them a portion of Square No.
646. The learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that Killas Nos. 5, 4/1 of Square No. 603 were wrongly taken away. This was done because the Assistant Consolidation Officer wanted to give them a compact block and instead they were given Killas Nos.15 and 16 of Square No
618. The learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the petitioners felt aggrieved over the withdrawal of certain Killas Nos. of Square No.
618. This again was done with a view to give the petitioners a consolidated block. Lastly the counsel for the petitioners has referred to the irrigational difficulties. Such difficulties will be eliminated after the new Warabandi is sanctioned after the finalisation of the consolidation. In these circumstances I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the three consolidation authorities below. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Revision dismissed.