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. 113 of 1983, decided 22nd October, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 11‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 3037 of 1983).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance of 1960), S.2(f)‑‑Land held by petitioners scattered into 13 blocks Reduction of such blocks to 9 by Consolidation Authorities‑‑Held, could not be said to be in violation of S.2(f) of Ordinance‑‑Leave to app refused.
Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Hassan Ahmad Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Salahuddin Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
M.M. Saved Baig, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.60‑62.
Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1983.
‑‑ Notice was issued to the Advocate General (Punjab) to assist the Court with reference to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Revenue and Consolidation Authorities had in the course of the consolidation proceed ings, increased the number of blocks held by the petitioner instead of reducing them. According to the learned counsel, the land of the petitioners had now been increased from 4 blocks to 9 blocks. Accord ingly, the orders of the Consolidation Authorities were in contravention of the provisions of section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
Mr. M.M. Saeed Baig appearing on behalf of the Advocate‑General, Punjab has explained with the help of a detailed charts, that the land of the petitioners before the commencement of consolidation proceedings was scattered into 13 blocks. It was only in pursuance of the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officers, dated 24‑6‑1975 that their land was consolidated into 5 blocks. However, on further appeals, remands revisions by the parties to higher Courts, the final position that emerged was that the land of the petitioners was consolidated into 9 blocks. The submission was that the contention that blocks into which the petitioners' land before consolidation was enhanced as against the blocks held by him before the consolidation was not correct.
It is evident that the petitioners cannot rely on an order, dated 24‑6‑1975 of a inferior Consolidation Authority whereby their blocks were reduced to 5 and on its basis contend that the ultimate Consolidation Authorities had erred in law by increasing the blocks of land held by them into 9 blocks. Since originally the land of the petitioners was scattered into 13 blocks, which have ultimately been reduced to 9 blocks, they cannot complain of any violation of section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The petition therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.
S.Q. Leave refused
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer