Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1045 of 1975, decided on 13th June, 1981.

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26-8-1975, passed in W. P. No. 1020 of 1969).

-- Art. 185 (3) read with Art. 199-Writ--Finding of fact-Contention that lower Court ignored fact of respondents having consented to schemes under consideration and wrongly thought as asserted by petitioner's counsel against record, that no consent had been given Counsel drawing attention to certain pages of Paper Book to show consent having been given-Counsel unable to answer in affirmative whether documents relied upon placed before lower Court-Question of alleged consent from respondent's side having been resolved by lower Court on good grounds, no reason, held, existed for not accepting respondents' plea of no consent having been given by them.

Sh. Abdur Rehman, Advocate and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 13th June, 1981.

Leave to appeal has been sought from order, dated 26-8-1975 of the Lahore High Court whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed a Constitutional petition, rising out of a consolidation of holding case.

In view of the detailed reasons given by the teams d Judge in support of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention, namely, that the learned judge ignored the fact that the respondents had consented to Schemes Nos. 334, 335 and 336 through Bashir Ahmad; and wrongly throught as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, against the record, that there was no such consent with regard to the said schemes; and further that the consent was only on Scheme No. 326.

Learned counsel has drawn our attention to pages 8, 9 and 10 of Paper Rook No. II to show that Bashir Ahmad had given consent on schemes Nos. 334, 335 and 336. On our question, learned counsel was unable to answer in the affirmative, whether the documents relied upon were placed before the learned Judge in the High Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to admit the additional evidence at this stage.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the question of alleged consent .from the respondents' side was resolved by the learned Single Judge on consideration of two aspects, one with regard to the conduct of Bashir Ahmad pointed out above ; and the other, related to the fact that the respondents were not served in time for appearance before the Collector. The learned Judge in this behalf observed that "it cannot be said that the respondents were a consenting party". Learned counsel has not been able to overcome this second point noted in the impugned order as a reason for not accepting the plea of respondents' consent raised from the petitioner's side. Thus we find no force in this petition, and the same is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.