AMIR DIN ETC. vs MUHAMMAD MALIK ETC
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition regarding a dispute over land allotment during consolidation of holdings proceedings. The core legal question was whether the consolidation authorities acted within their jurisdiction and whether the petitioners suffered any prejudice due to the allotment of land. The Supreme Court observed that consolidation authorities possess the jurisdiction to create lots and blocks for land-owners based on their entitlement. Upon review, the Court found that the area allotted to the petitioners remained undiminished, and the number of blocks assigned to them had actually been reduced, indicating no prejudice or loss. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners had not suffered any injury from the consolidation proceedings. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others, the Court determined that this was not a fit case for interference with the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lacking merit.
- Do consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to create lots and blocks for land-owners during consolidation proceedings?
- Is interference by the Supreme Court warranted when a petitioner has suffered no actual loss or prejudice in land consolidation proceedings?
ORDER
KARAM ELAH88 CHAUHAN, J.--It is not necessary to mention the lengthy details of the stages and the Courts or forums through which this case passed and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the order which we propose to render in this case, that the dispute herein, is with regard to a particular area of land, which the petitioners claimed in the process of consolidation of holdings, should have been given to them and not to the respondent. As a matter of fact the petitioners for that purpose filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 1793/68 which was dismissed by the High Court on 26th August 1975. It is the aforesaid order against which leave to appeal is being sought from this Court.
2. It is well settled that the consolidation authorities have the juris--diction to make lots for giving land to each land-owner, with regard to his entitlement, and also to make blocks of his total holding in that respect. In the instant case, it is conceded, that the area ultimately allotted to the petitioners has not been diminished in any manner and rather their number of blocks have been brought down from 11 to 10. This will show A that the petitioners have not suffered in any manner from the ultimate orders passed in the consolidation proceedings. In these circumstance as laid down in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar an others PLD1974SC139 (which was a case of consolidation of holdings), this is not a fit case for interference by this Court.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhammad Bakhsh Versus Member (Consolidation) Punjab Board of Revenue, Lahore 2026 MLD 1149
- ABDUL SATTAR and others vs MEMBER, BORD OF REVENUE and others 2005 YLR 1101
- MANZOOR AHMAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE 2002 PLD 62
- ASAD RIAZ vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And 4 Other 1997 SCMR 1611
- FALAK SHER and others vs SHARIF and others 1989 SCMR 1096
- Muhammad Bakhsh,etc vs Member (Consolidation) Punjab Board of Revenue Lahore, etc 2025 LHC 4147