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.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 277 of 1976, decided on 21st June, 1982.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18‑11‑1975, passed in Writ Petition No. 1878 of 1969).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑No legal defect shown in impugned judgment‑Petitioners' only grievance being that they should have been granted compensation by Revenue authorities for improvements, made by them in land surrendered by them as a result of consolidation proceedings‑Such question already considered by High Court but High Court could not in law grant such relief‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances.
Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st June, 1982.
‑The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 18‑11‑1975, dismissing their writ petition in a consolidation matter relating to village Gadhai Tehsil Bhakkar District Mianwali. The Consolidation Scheme was started and sanctioned as far back as 1961 and was finally confirmed in April, 1965. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal against the confirmation of the consolidation before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, who made certain changes therein. Both the parties felt aggrieved against that order, filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, which were disposed of by order dated 27‑8‑1969. The Member Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition of the respondents vide order dated 27‑8‑1969 but dismissed that of the petitioners. He set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the order of the Collector. Still not being satisfied the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 12‑11‑1975.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has no been able to show any legal defect in the impugned judgment. The only grievance made by him is that the petitioners should have been granted compensation by the Revenue authorities for the improvements made them in the land they were made to surrender as a result of the consolidation proceedings. This question has already been considered by the High Court, but it was not for the High Court to have granted this relief.
3. With the above observation the petition 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