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.
R.O.R. No.2063 of 1978‑79, decided on 20th October, 1982.
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Consolidation‑‑Withdrawal of certain area from scheme of petitioners by Additional Commissioner‑‑Petitioners found to be adequately compensated against their previous entitlement and accommodated near Abadi Deh‑‑Petitioners being not previous owners of area claimed and such area having been rightly given to respondents, to make up their deficiency near Abadi Deh, revision petition against order of Additional Commissioner was dismissed.
Muhammad Shafi and Mukhtar Ahmad Petitioners in person.
Sh.Hamid Asghar for Respondent.
This revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) Lahore, dated 21‑7‑1979, whereby he refused to reverse his previous order dated 13‑3‑1979 passed ex parte making certain adjustments in the khatas of the parties.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had unjustifiably withdrawn from them khasra No.952‑min west (4K‑‑lOM), class I in exchange for the respondents' No.1177 (4 kanals) Class I. They pray for the restoration of the disputed khasra number to them. The respondents' case is that the disputed khasra No,.952 was not owned by the petitioners arid has been given to them to make up their deficiency near Abadi Deh:
3. I have heard the parties and seen the record.
4. The record shows that the petitioners have been given 67K, 19M in terms of Class II and as against their previous entitlement of 67K, lOM in terms of that class. They have also been adequately accommodated near Abadi Deh. Their plots have also been decreased from 9 to 6. As regards the disputed khasra number 952, it was not owned by the petitioners and has been rightly given to the respondents in order to make up their deficiency near Abadi Deh. In these circumstances do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order which is upheld and the revision petition dismissed accordingly.
A.A./228/R Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer