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. 823 of 19'75, decided on 26th January, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 26th August, 1975, m W. P. 1793 of 1968).
__S. 10-Consolidation authorities-Possess jurisdiction to make lots for giving land to each land owner with regard to his entitlement and also to make blocks of his total holding in such regard-Area ultimately allotted to petitioner not diminished in any manner and rather their number of blocks brought down-Petitioners, hence, not suffering in any manner from ultimate orders passed by Con solidation authorities and in circumstances case not fit for inter ference by Supreme Court.
Muhammad Husaln Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref.
Syed Niaz All Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim,
Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of bearing . 26th January, 1981. .
--It is not necessary to mention the lengthy details of the stages and the Courts or forums through which this case passed and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the order which we propose to render in this case, that the dispute herein, is with regard to a particular area of land, which the petitioners claimed in the process of consolidation of holdings, should have been given to them and not to the respondent. As a matter of fact the petitioners for that purpose filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 1793/68 which was dismissed by the High Court on 26th August 1975. It is the aforesaid order against which leave to appeal is being sought from this Court.
2. It is well settled that the consolidation authorities have the juris diction to make lots for giving land to each land-owner, with regard to his entitlement, and also to make blocks of his total holding in that respect. In the instant case, it is conceded, that the area ultimately allotted to the petitioners has not been diminished in any manner and rather their number of blocks have been brought down from 11 to 10. This will show A that the petitioners have not suffered in any manner from the ultimate orders passed in the consolidation proceedings. In these circumstance as laid down in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar an others PLD1974SC139 (which was a case of consolidation of holdings), this is not a fit case for interference by this Court.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer