1989 SCMR 2066

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus MEMBER (CONS.), BOARD REVENUE, PUNJAB

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1989 SCMR 2066

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.186 of 1981

Date1988-07-12

Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal

Authored byJavid Iqbal

ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioners and is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26 November, 1980 whereby the writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed.

2. The controversy pertains to consolidation. The petitioner were aggrieved by the allocation of certain Khasra numbers to Ghulam Din respondent. Initially the consolidation scheme in the village; was confirmed on 31 December, 1973. The petitioners not satisfied with the same appealed to the Collector against it. The matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer on '7 January, 1975 who passed the order on remand, dated 24 November, 1975 which was challenged by Ghulam Din respondent before the Collector who reversed it Aggrieved by the same the petitioners filed appeal which was accepted. Thereafter, Ghulam Din respondent moved a revision in the Board of Revenue which was allowed thus restoring the order of the Collector dated 28 August, 1977. The petitioners then challenged the order of the Member Board of Revenue by way of writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore mainly on the two grounds that due to tile consolidation proceedings there was no loss in the entitlement of the petitioners and that the order of the Collector, dated 28 August, 1977 only referred to Khasra No.962 (old) as in appeal of the petitioners only this Khasra number had been referred to and the Member Board of Revenue upholding the order of the Collector had agreed with him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before u s that Khasra No.961 (old) was included in the remand order and that the petitioner, had referred to it in their appeal as well. But this contention is not supported by the record. In any case since the entitlement of the petitioners had not been I 1 affected in any way in the consolidation operations, there was no justification on the part of the learned Judge of the High Court in interfering with the order of the Member Board of Revenue in his exercise of writ jurisdiction.

4. In the light of the above discussion we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

5. M.A.K./M‑966/5 Petition dismissed.