Pakistan Case Law
1989 SCMR 1817

ALLAH REHMAN and others vs AMTUL QAYYUM and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 SCMR 1817
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 252 of 1989
Date1989-04-16
Judge(s)Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Sood Jan
Authored bySaad Saood Jan
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court. The High Court had declined to interfere with an order of the Board of Revenue, which affirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner making adjustments in a consolidation scheme. These adjustments resulted in the petitioners being deprived of certain fields in the Nian area, though they did not allege receiving less land than their total entitlement. The core legal question was whether orders made by consolidation authorities regarding the allocation of land can be challenged through writ jurisdiction under the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and refused leave to appeal, holding that orders passed by consolidation authorities concerning the allocation or adjustment of land are not appropriate matters for agitation or interference under writ jurisdiction. Relying on established precedent, the Court reiterated that the allocation of specific land parcels during consolidation proceedings falls within the exclusive domain of consolidation authorities and does not warrant constitutional review.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can orders made by consolidation authorities regarding the allocation of land be agitated in writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with adjustments in a land consolidation scheme under its constitutional jurisdiction when total land entitlement is preserved?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
consolidation schemeallocation of landwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionBoard of Revenueleave to appeal

ORDER

1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of their constitution petition by the High Court whereby it declined to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue affirming the order of the Additional Commissioner who had made certain adjustments in the consolidation scheme as a result of which the petitioners were deprived of certain fields falling in Nian area. It was not their case that as a result of these adjustments they were given less land than their actual entilements. It has already been held by this Court that the orders made by the Consolidation authorities with regard to allocation of land A are not fit matters which can he agitated in writ jurisdiction; see Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandcr (PLD 1974 S.C. 139). The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the Constitution petition of the petitioners. Leave is refused.

Cited by 10 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.