2004 PLP 209 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD FEROZE MALIK and 4 others — Petitioners Versus NADIR ALI and 19 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 209 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FEROZE MALIK and 4 others — Petitioners Versus NADIR ALI and 19 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 209 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 209 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 209 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD FEROZE MALIK and 4 others — Petitioners Versus NADIR ALI and 19 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Tiwana for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Hussain Khan Baloch for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 18
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.163
Confirmation of Consolidation Scheme of village
Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, after such confirmation, issued warrant of possession in favour of respondents in respect of land allocated to them during consolidation-- Appeal of petitioner against order of Collector was accepted by Additional Commissioner and respondents' revision against order of Additional Commissioner having been accepted by Member, Board of Revenue, petitioner filed review petition against order of Member, Board of Revenue
Petitioner had contended that he being in continuous possession of disputed land as owner, delivery of possession thereof to respondents under S.18 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 was unwarranted
Argument of respondents was that they were entitled to possession of land allocated to them in consolidation and petitioner's claim to purchase the said land was baseless
Order passed by Member, Board of Revenue in revision was not maintainable; firstly, because mutations in respect of land in dispute were entered subsequent to the purchase by petitioner of said land; secondly, petitioner continued in possession of said land even after consolidation was confirmed; thirdly, sale was, completed in all aspects 'of law and right of petitioner was created thereby; fourthly, rights which were created, were not affected and persons who were allotted the land, had to be put in possession of the same; fifthly, petitioner was to step into the shoes of respondents on the basis of sale and thereby petitioner was entitled to possession; sixthly, there was no litigation regarding title of said land between the parties as petitioner was not right holder of said village and seventhly, claim lodged by respondents was time- barred.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Hussain Khan Baloch for Respondents. This order shall dispose of all these eight review petitions as these are directed against the same order and contain identical issues of law/fact.
2. These review petitions have come up against order, dated 13-10-2001 of Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
3. Brief facts are that consolidation scheme of village Mitha Tiwana, Tehsil and District Khushab was confirmed by Consolidation Officer on 28-12-1975. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauherabad vide order, dated 15-7-1998 issued warrant of possession in favour of respondents in respect of land allocated to them during consolidation. Appeal of the petitioner against this order was accepted by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division vide order, dated. 2-3-1999. Respondent's revisions against this order were accepted by Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue. Hence the present review.
4. Arguments heard. Case record seen.
5. Argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner continued in possession of disputed land as owners and delivery of possession to respondents under section 18 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 was unwarranted.
6. Arguments on behalf of respondents is that respondents are entitled to possession of land allocated to them in consolidation, petitioner's claim to purchase is baseless and village after consolidation has been returned to Mahal side.
7. Impugned order is not maintainable on following grounds. First, Mutation No.1421 and 1424 were entered subsequent to purchase by petitioners of said land. Second, petitioners continued in possession of said land even after consolidation was confirmed on 28-12-1975. Third, sale was completed in all aspects of the law and right of petitioners was thereby created. Fourth, rights which are created are not affected and persons who are allotted the land have to be put in possession of the same. Fifth, petitioners were to step into the shoes of respondents on the basis of sale and thereby petitioners were entitled to possession. Sixth, there was no litigation regarding title of said land between parties as petitioners were not right holders in said village. Seventh, claim lodged by respondents was time-barred.
8. I, therefore, accept all these eight review petitions and recall order, dated 13-10-2001. H.B.T./65/Rev. Review Petitions accepted.