| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1103 1992 SLD 1103 = 1992 CLC 2351 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 1141 of 1991, decided on 11th November, 1991. DATEof hearing: 28th October, 1991
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J
Ch. Irshad Ahmad Virk for Petitioner
W.P. No. 1141 of 1991, decided on 11th November, 1991. DATEof hearing: 28th October, 1991
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J
Ch. Irshad Ahmad Virk for Petitioner
MUHAMMAD HAYATvsMEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others
Law: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)
Section: 13
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)--------S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction---Past and closed transaction---Effect --- Petitioner claimed to have been rightly accommodated during consolidation operation---Collector having made amendment in the Wanda of petitioner, he failed to challenge such amendment in his Wanda --- Petitioner's such conduct disentitled him to seek extraordinary relief in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction --- Possession of property in question, had changed meanwhile and transaction was past and closed --- Principle underlying consolidation of holdings having been complied with no case -was made out warranting interference by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction.ORDER This writ petition has been filed to assail the operation under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, in village Ransekcy, Tehsil Phalia District, Gujrat. The brief history of the case is that the scheme framed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance was confirmed on 31-7-1975. The petitioner and 'others riled appeals separately before the Collector who vide order dated 13-8-1983 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Gujrat, for framing fresh proposals. In pursuance to the remand order, the Consolidation Officer submitted his proposal on 5-7-1985 to the Collector who vide order dated 25-8-1985 made certain amendments in the Wandas of the parties. It may be stated here that the petitioner also consented in favour of the proposal framed by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner again challenged the aforesaid order by Way of preferring an appeal which was dismissed and against…