Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUZAFFAR AHMED and others VS Respondent: The STATE
Court Name: Board of Revenue Judge(s): Waheed Akhtar Ansari Title: MUZAFFAR AHMED and others vs The STATE Case No.: Case No,528 Date of Judgment:2014-10-27 Reported As: 2015 MLD 1659 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--The perusal of the case file reveals that the title case was entrusted to this court vide order dated 5-8-2014 by learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab for disposal which reads as under:- "The instant file was entrusted to this court by the Member (Judicial-III)/Notified Officer for verification of the order dated 8-5-2009 passed by the then Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. The order dated 8-5-2009 is available on the main file and the original file is sent to Member (Judicial-III) Notified Officer for further proceedings as per law. Hence the case is disposed of. 2. On receipt of case file, the same was fixed in peshi on 22-9-2014. The applicant attended the court proceedings along with learned counsel Mr. Khurshid Iqbal Advocate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners may be allotted alternate plot in pursuance of order dated 5-8-2014 passed by learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. The attention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was drawn towards the above order and he was required to produce the copy of allotment order, which needs to be implemented in obedience of the order of learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. Learned counsel for the petitioners straightaway refused to produce any such allotment document on 13-10-2014. Even then, learned counsel for the petitioner was given time to produce the requisite order, as in absence of such order, further proceedings in consequence of order of learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, would not be possible. Even then, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to produce any such allotment order in favour of the petitioner.
---
## Page 2
4. In the light of the above position, where the petitioners have failed to produce any documentary proof or any document proving allotment in their favour, to proceed further with the matter regarding implementation of allotment order is not possible. 5. The matter is disposed of accordingly. The case file shall be consigned to record room after its due compilation/page marking.