| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 892 2023 SLD 892 2023 MLD 437 |
Islamabad High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 321 of 2020, decided on 31stOctober, 2022. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 2022.
Before Babar Sattar, J
Ashfaq Ahmad Khan for Appellant.Babar Saeed Butt for
Respondent.
Regular First Appeal No. 321 of 2020, decided on 31stOctober, 2022. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 2022.
Before Babar Sattar, J
Ashfaq Ahmad Khan for Appellant.Babar Saeed Butt for
Respondent.
FIDA HUSSAIN WARRAICH-----AppellantVersusSyed ZARFAN HUSSAIN SHAH-----Respondent
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1980)--- ----Ss. 9, 10---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Consolidation of holdings---Substitution of findings---Petitioners were aggrieved of order passed by Consolidation Officer which was maintained by Board of Revenue---Validity---Board of Revenue decided matter after embarking upon every aspect of case and had rightly maintained order of Consolidation Officer---Order in question was neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction nor passed in excess of jurisdiction by Board of Revenue---Petitioners failed to point out any jurisdictional defect/error in order in question---In exercise of its Constitutional Jurisdiction, High Court had only to see as to whether a Tribunal or Court acted without jurisdiction or violated statute or law laid down by the superior Courts---High Court was not called upon to re-appraise the evidence---Constitutional petitions were not to be decided in the manner of appeals---High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of Tribunals below---Constitutional Jurisdiction was not attracted unless glaring injustice or error of law was pointed out---Constitutional petition against consolidation matter was not maintainable---Mere allocation and adjustments made in the scheme and upheld by the statutory functionaries would not entitle the petitioner to seek a judicial review---Factual controversy could not be resolved by High Court in exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction until and unless there was a deficiency in entitlement of right holder, adjustment or allocation of land in consolidation scheme---Constitutional provisions were not designed to empower High Court to interfere with decision of a Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction merely because in its opinion decision was wrong---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Board of Revenue---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Hayat and others v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue and others 2007 SCMR 1950; Ghulam Qadir v. Member Board of Revenue 1970 SCMR 292; Mst. Ilam Bibi and 8 others v.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492