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. 593 of 1978, decided on 17th August, 1981.
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, dated 16‑9‑1978, passed in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 1978).
West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑
‑‑ S. 112‑No documentary proof forthcoming to show land in dispute being garden at time of consolidation operations‑Board of Revenue finding garden being a recent creation not in exist ence when consolidation operation started‑High Court, held, rightly rejected petitioner's claim to garden or compensation for same.
Yusuf Ali Khan, Barrister‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing : 17th August, 1981.
.‑A consolidation scheme confirmed by the Collector (Consolidation), Depalpur, on 15‑3‑1973 became subject‑matter of litigation. After a revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue. Punjab, on 12‑7‑1978, they invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. Their case was that Killa No. 3/2 of Square No. 63 which was a garden should have been given to them or in the alternative they should have been compensated for it. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on 16‑9‑1978 on the view that at the time of the consolidation operations the garden was not in existence as such the question of the petitioners' entitlement to it or of compensation for it did not arise.
2. Learned counsel attempted, by reference to Khasra Girdawaris, for the years Rabi 1976 and Kharif 1977, to show that Killa No. 3/2 of Square No. 63 is a garden. He, however, had no document to show that it had been a garden in 1973 which was the relevant time. The learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, had found that the garden was a recent creation and had not been in existence when the consolidation operations had stated in the village. This being so, the High Court had rightly rejected the petitioners' plea. The petitioners' holdings had been consolidated at two places against previous three and, as found by the learned Member (Consolidation). Board of Revenue, Punjab, the shape of their new area was not awkward. The parties had already agreed that the land be distributed without class of soil.
3. In these circumstances we find no merit in this petition for leave to appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer