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.
Constitutional Petition No. 818 of 1965, decided on 18th October, 1978.
------‑ Art. 98‑‑Constitutional remedy‑A discretionary remedy‑Court ‑reluctant to exercise its discretion where such exercise results in causing prejudice to large number of people‑Board of Revenue after being seized of matter competent to examine legality or propriety of transfer made in petitioner's favour notwithstanding matter having been brought before it in connection with question whether land in dispute be reserved for village amenities‑Transfer order in petitioner's favour having been set aside under revisional powers exerciseable suo motu, fact of matter having not been brought before Board of Revenue through a regular revision immaterial -Questions whether land be reserved for village amenities and whether transfer in petitioner's favour be not disturbed, held, interlinked and one could not be divorced from other‑Board of Revenue after due application of mind reserving land for Asaish of village for good reasons, in impugned order, held, cannot be said to suffer from lawful authority or any infirmity and as such not open to question in writ jurisdiction.
Pir Muhammad Farid Khan v. Colonisation Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad and others P L D 1965 S C 399 and Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref.
Imam Ali Kazi and Sabir Hussain Rahmani for Petitioner.
A. H. Faruqui for A.‑G. (Sind) for Respondent No. 1.
S. A. Chana for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing : 9th October, 1978.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer