2005 PLP 1488 (CLC)
NAZIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1488 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1488 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1488 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1488 (CLC) (NAZIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Baqar Najafi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 30(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Acquisition of proprietary rights by respondent upheld in revenue hierarchy
Alleging such allotment in Constitutional petition to be result of fraud and misrepresentation after lapse of 24 years
Question of fact involved would require recording of evidence and examination of record
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction would not go into such matter--No illegality or jurisdictional defect could be pointed out in impugned order
High Court dismissed Constitutional petition in limine.
Judgment & Decree
The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner being aggrieved of the allotment of the land measuring 66 Kanals and 9 Marlas, situated in Chak No.213/GB, Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad, in favour of Mst. Bashir, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.4, vide order dated 7-10-1958, on whom the proprietary rights were conferred, made an application to respondent No.3, for cancellation of the land of respondent No.4, allegedly allotted on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. The said application was dismissed by respondent No.3, vide order, dated 20-10-2003. The petitioner filed revision petition before respondent No.2, who dismissed the same and lastly the petitioner approached Member, Board of Revenue/respondent No.1, by filing R.O.R. No.1819 of 2004, which met with the failure vide impugned order, dated 28-2-2005. The allotment of the land was made originally in the name of Mst. Basri, in the year 1981, the present petitioner, Nazir Ahmed and one Abdul Majeed, challenged that allotment upto Member, Colonies, Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and was unsuccessful. He again filed the present application which also met with the same result.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is admitted position that the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved of the allotment of the said land in favour of Mst. Basri, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.4, but all the Revenue Authorities upheld the allotment made in favour of Mst. Basri. The main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment was result of fraud and misrepresentation. Mst. Basri was not entitled for the same.
3. Since the petitioner had been involved in litigation with regard to the allotment of land and went upto the Member, Board of Revenue. The allotment was upheld which attained finality. Had the allotment been made fraudulently the present petitioner could raise the objection during the earlier litigation. It is a past and closed matter and cannot be reopened after passage of 24 years.
4. The learned Member, Board of Revenue has validly passed the impugned order. The learned counsel when confronted, could not point out any illegality or any jurisdictional defect that the impugned order has been passed illegally, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. The other aspect of the case is that question of fact is involved in this matter which requires recording of evidence and examination of the record and this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, would not go into the same as laid down in Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary and others 1993 SCMR 618; Benedict F. D. Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and 3 others 1989 SCMR 918 and Federation of Pakistan and 2 others v. Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan PLD 1991 SC 476.
10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substance in the writ petition which is dismissed in limine. S.A.K./N-48/L Petition dismissed. ***