Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 796 of 1979, decided on 16th March, 1986.
(Against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8‑4‑1979 passed in R.S.A. No. 411 of 1976).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960), S. 26‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Second appeal‑‑Civil suit directed against proceedings of revenue authorities in a consolidation matter‑‑ Prayer of petitioners before Court being that they should be declared as owners of particular Khasra numbers which had been given by consolidation authorities to another person‑‑Petitioner, held, had no cause of action before Court‑‑Remedy of petitioner lay within competence of authorities dealing with consolidation matters who were duty bound to constitute compact blocks of scattered pieces of land belonging to different persons‑‑Civil Court, therefore, rightly declined to interfere with a decision taken by consolidation authorities‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th March, 1986.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, dated 8‑4‑1979, dismissing their R.S.A.
2. We have read the impugned order of the High Court and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
We find that the Civil suit out of which the R.S.A. has arisen was directed against the proceedings of the revenue authorities in a consolidation matter. The prayer by the petitioners before the Civil Court was that they should be declared as owners of particular Khasra numbers which had been given by the consolidation authorities to another person.
After hearing the learned counsel we feel that the petitioners have no cause for grievance. Such action is not only within the competence of the authorities dealing with consolidation matters but is, in fact, their duty to constitute compact blocks of scattered pieces of land belonging to different persons with a view to curtail fragmentation of land and to consolidate the holdings. The learned Civil Judge rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to interfere with a decision of this nature taken by the consolidation authorities. We are, therefore, not) inclined to grant leave in this case. The petition is consequently dismissed as having no force.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer