| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4874 = 2026 SLD 4874 = 2026 MLD 1149 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Writ Petition No. 2535 of 2015, decided on 17th June, 2025.
Presented By: Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J
Ghulam Hussain v. Allah Baksh 1991 SCMR 1386 and Muhammad Asjad Abbasi v. Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan 2018 SCMR 2051 rel. Qaisar Abbas Khan for Petitioner (in Writ Petitions Nos. 2532, 2533, 2535, 2536, 2537 and 2538 of 2015). Malik Javed Akhtar Wains and Muhammad Imran Shahzad Bhatti for Petitioners (Writ Petitions Nos. 2531, 2535, 2536, 2537 and 2538 of 2015). Syed Athar Hassan Bukhari for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 15269 of 2014). Sardar Tariq Sher Khan for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 17284 of 2014). Yafis Naveed Hashim for Petitioner (in Writ Petition Nos. 819, 2535, 2536, 2537 of 2015, 12665 of 2018, 5095 of 2019, 5738 of 2020 and 2035 of 2022). Abdul Rehman Khan Laskani and Arshad Aziz Laskani for Petitioner (in Crl. Org. No. 994-W of 2022). Abdul Rehman Khan Laskani, Arshad Aziz Laskani and Saira Tufail for
Respondents (in Writ Petitions Nos. 2531, 2533, 2535, 2537, 2538 of 2015, 12665 of 2018 and 5738 of 2020). Yafis Naveed Hashmi for
Respondent No. 2 (in Crl. Orig. No. 994-W of 222).
Writ Petition No. 2535 of 2015, decided on 17th June, 2025.
Presented By: Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J
Ghulam Hussain v. Allah Baksh 1991 SCMR 1386 and Muhammad Asjad Abbasi v. Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan 2018 SCMR 2051 rel. Qaisar Abbas Khan for Petitioner (in Writ Petitions Nos. 2532, 2533, 2535, 2536, 2537 and 2538 of 2015). Malik Javed Akhtar Wains and Muhammad Imran Shahzad Bhatti for Petitioners (Writ Petitions Nos. 2531, 2535, 2536, 2537 and 2538 of 2015). Syed Athar Hassan Bukhari for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 15269 of 2014). Sardar Tariq Sher Khan for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 17284 of 2014). Yafis Naveed Hashim for Petitioner (in Writ Petition Nos. 819, 2535, 2536, 2537 of 2015, 12665 of 2018, 5095 of 2019, 5738 of 2020 and 2035 of 2022). Abdul Rehman Khan Laskani and Arshad Aziz Laskani for Petitioner (in Crl. Org. No. 994-W of 2022). Abdul Rehman Khan Laskani, Arshad Aziz Laskani and Saira Tufail for
Respondents (in Writ Petitions Nos. 2531, 2533, 2535, 2537, 2538 of 2015, 12665 of 2018 and 5738 of 2020). Yafis Naveed Hashmi for
Respondent No. 2 (in Crl. Orig. No. 994-W of 222).
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 2 others---Petitioners
VERSUS
MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION) PUNJAB BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE and 30 others---Respondents
Law: Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960
Section: 9, 9A, 10
Law: Punjab Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959
Section:
(a) Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) Ss.9, 9A & 10---East Punjab Land Alienation (Saving of Shamilat) Act, (XIX of 1948), [Applicable in India] S.3---Punjab Land Dispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance (I of 1959), S.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Consolidation proceedings---Shamilat Deh---Distribution in accordance with finalized consolidation scheme---Effect---Purchasers without express shamilat rights---Locus standi ---Petitioners being deprived of their respective holdings in shamilat after confirmation of consolidation scheme, plea of---Legality---Limited scope of constitutional jurisdiction in such matters---Present writ petitions arose from long-pending consolidation proceedings involving suit land, where consolidation commenced in 1977, the mode of partition was sanctioned in 1980 and the consolidation scheme was finalized in 1984---Disputes regarding the distribution of shamilat were finally settled by the Member, Board of Revenue in 1992 and were upheld by the High Court, after which shamilat was distributed and successive appeals, revisions and objections were dismissed by revenue authorities up to the impugned order---The petitioners, comprising purchasers and landholders of varying categories, challenged these concurrent revenue orders before the High Court---The core issue in the matter was whether, after finalization and implementation of the consolidation scheme and repeated affirmations by revenue forums, the distribution of shamilatdeh could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, particularly where purchasers had not acquired shamilat rights expressly and the challenge essentially related to allocation and entitlement already concluded under consolidation proceedings? ---Held: Petitioners had not specified any right nor area nor had placed any document in support of their allegation that shamilatdeh had been wrongly allocated to the land holders who were not entitled to such allotment---Rights of proprietors in shamilat of a village were not a mere accessory to the land separately held by them and the onus lay on a purchaser of proprietary land to show that a sale to him included also a share…