Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 201 of 1968, decided on 8th October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 137 of 1968).
r. 25-- Adjustment in consolidation scheme‑Person affected, a minor Power of attorney (for his representation in consolidation proceed ings) not signed by properly appointed guardian ad litem as required by rule‑Whether failure renders proceeding as against minor a nullity and void‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.
Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th October 1968.
‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, dismissing a writ petition. The writ petition was filed to challenge the order of a Member, Board of Revenue, making certain adjustments in the consolidation scheme of village Kot Kharaman, District Jhang, in revision.
The petitioner Syed Ali Nawaz claimed that this order had been passed during his minority without appointing a guardian to represent him or giving him any notice.
He filed a review petition before the Member, Board of Revenue urging this ground but the learned Member rejected the review petition holding that since his father Sultan Ali knew that his minor son was impleaded in the revision and a power‑of attorney had been actually filed by a learned Advocate on behalf of the said minor, there was adequate representation of the minor in the proceedings.
The High Court has also agreed in this behalf with the learned Member, Board of Revenue and held that the petitioner was duly represented in those proceedings through a counsel.
The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the power‑of‑attorney not having been signed by a properly appointed guardian, was not a proper power and there was, therefore, no proper representation. According to the petitioner it was incumbent upon the Consolida tion Authorities to appoint a proper guardian for his representation in the consolidation proceedings under rule 25 of the Rules framed under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. This rule clearly provides that where a land owner whose holding is likely to be affected by a scheme of consolidation is a minor, the Consolidation Officer may, after making such enquiries as may be necessary, by order in writing appoint a suitable person, whose interest is not adverse to that of the minor, as guardian ad litem of such minor. This was evidently not done.
It is urged that this failure has rendered the proceedings as against the petitioner a nullity and void. The contention appears to be of some substance since no guardian was admitted appointed for the minor who was impleaded as a respondent in the revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue in contravention of Rule 25 referred to above.
The point, therefore, does arise for consideration, namely, as to whether the consolidation thus effected was, in the circumstances, binding upon the minor. Leave is, accordingly, granted to examine the above question. Security‑Rs. 1000.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer