BAHAWAL BAKHSH vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court in a consolidation dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ regarding compensation for date-trees and whether an agreement among land-holders excluded a specific individual, Muhammad Shafi. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was fully justified in refusing relief, as the record revealed no reservation was made in the agreement regarding Muhammad Shafi or the compensation for date-trees. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that binding agreements among land-holders in consolidation proceedings preclude subsequent challenges regarding excluded reservations or specific compensation claims unless explicitly provided for in the agreement.
- Whether a writ can be granted regarding compensation for date-trees when an agreement among land-holders contains no such reservation?
- Is a party bound by a consolidation agreement that does not explicitly exclude specific individuals or claims?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in a consolidation matter against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's writ petition.
2. ' Learned counsel contended that notwithstanding the observations of the High Court regarding an agreement between the land-holders including the. Petitioner, writ should have been granted in so far as the compensation for the date-trees, is concerned. He also urged that although there was an agreement with other persons but on the point raised, there was no agreement with Muhammad Shafi, the person concerned.
3. After hearing him and examining the record, we do not agree with him on any of the points. No reservation was made in the agreement in question with regard to Muhammad Shafi or on the point of compensation for date-trees. In the circumstances of this case, the learned Judge in the.
4. High Court was justified in refusing relief to the petitioner. That being so, this petition is dismissed.