1989SCMR284 (PLP)
FATEH SHER and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE (Cons.) and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR284 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH SHER and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE (Cons.) and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR284 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR284 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR284 (PLP) (FATEH SHER and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE (Cons.) and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Javaid Butter, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
- M. Javaid Butter, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 20-4-1982 of shoe High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 1198 of 1982). ,
S. 6--Consolidation proceedings--Petitioners opposing consolidation in Kills/Rectangle in question on ground that their built-up property included houses situated therein which could not be taken away--Petitioners before Additional Commissioner, conceded that rectangle in question might be taken away from them and they be given another rectangle--Petitioners did not challenge allotment of rectangle in favour of respondent and acquiesced with it- Petitioners praying for reopening of whole case on ground that concession made from petitioners' side was conditional--Prayer of petitioners for interference with impugned order held, was not justified, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by some land‑owners against the dismissal by the High Court of their writ petition which had arisen out of a consolidation matter. The dispute now left to be resolved, revolves around the piece of land, which falls within the plot No. 55; wherein, according to the petitioners, their built up property including houses, is situate. The learned Judge in the High Court made the following observations in this behalf: "The next point raised is that as the petitioners had their pucca‑houses in killa No. 8 of rectangle No. 55, the same could not be taken away. It is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners in the argument on 11th July, 1981, before the Additional Commissioner, conceded that rectangle No. 55 may be taken away from them and they may be given rectangle No.
56. The Additional Commissioner also observed that the allotment of rectangle No. 55 in favour of respondents had to be maintained in view of a previous order of the Board of Revenue. Admittedly, the petitioners did not challenge that order further and so acquiesced in that part also. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel cannot be heard at this stage to say that the whole thing should be reopened. It may further be noted that there is no mention of any pucca‑houses in the arguments of the learned counsel m the order of the learned Additional Commissioner After hearing the learned counsel who while being unable to deny the correctness of the facts stated in the afore‑quoted observations, contended that the concession made from the petitioners' side was conditional. And as the petitioners have been put to loss without the satisfaction of the relevant conditions, the reliance on their concession or admission was not justified. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment as it is based on the admission made from the petitioners' side and the so called conditions now made the basis for the arguments before us, were not then agitated. Accordingly, it is not a fit case for leave to appeal. The same is refused. M.Y.H./F‑73/S Petition refused.