1990 PLP 994 (SCMR)
DILAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SHAH and 20 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 994 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqhal, JJ |
| Parties | DILAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SHAH and 20 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 994 (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 1990 PLP 994 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqhal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 994 (SCMR) (DILAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SHAH and 20 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18th May, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 676 of 1986). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Consolidation proceedings‑‑‑Petitioner being dissatisfied with the Consolidation Scheme preferred appeal against it but to no effect‑‑‑Petitioner's successive revisions met the same fate‑‑‑Orders of Revenue Authorities were challenged by the petitioner in Constitutional petition which was dismissed‑‑‑Petitioner's plea m petition for leave to appeal was that there was orchard on the land of the petitioner and the land was of good quality but it had wrongfully been given to other owners‑‑‑Such aspect of the case was properly attended to by the High Court‑‑‑Orchard found no mention in Revenue Record‑‑‑Findings of Board of Revenue were that petitioner had not been unfairly treated; he was given land according to his entitlement and in fact in excess of his entitlement‑‑‑Petitioner's Hisadari possession was kept in view at the time when joint Khata was partitioned and he was heard at the stage of appeal although his appeal was time‑barred, delay whereof, was condoned‑‑‑Case was thus not a fit one for grant of leave‑‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th August, 1989. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18th May 1986 whereby writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. It is a consolidation matter. Under the Consolidation Scheme certain adjustments were made in the village where the petitioner is one of the land owners by Assistant Consolidation Officer in 1977. In 1978 appeals were preferred and the Collector made further modifications in the Khatas of the parties. Subsequently the petitioner and other land‑owners filed revision petitions but these were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. Thereafter the revision of the petitioner met the same fate before the Member, Board of Revenue. The orders of the Revenue Authorities were challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition which has been dismissed. Hence the present petition. .. It was submitted by the learned counsel that there was orchard on the land of the petitioner and the land was of good quality, but it has wrongfully been given to the other owners. This aspect of the case has been properly attended to by the learned Judge of the High Court. The orchard finds no mention in the Revenue Record. The findings of the Member Board of Revenue are that the petitioner had not been unfairly treated. He was given land according to his entitlement and in fact in excess of his entitlement. His Hissadari possession was kept in view at the time when the joint "ata was partitioned. The petitioner was heard at the stage of appeal although his appeal was time‑barred and the delay .was condoned. In the light of the above discussion it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./D‑60/S Leave to appeal refused.