Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SADIQ Alias MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ VS Respondent: MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE AND 3 Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Aslam Riaz Hussain Title:MUHAMMAD SADIQ Alias MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION),
BOARD OF REVENUE AND 3 Other Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1045 of 1975 W. P. No. 1020 of 1969 Date of Judgment:1981-06-12 Reported As: 1981 SCMR 969 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL AULLAH, J. -Leave to appeal has been sought from order, dated 26-8-1975 of the Lahore High Court whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed a Constitutionalpetition, rising out of a consolidation of holding case. In view of the detailed reasons given by the teams d Judge in support of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention, namely, that the learned judge ignored the fact that the respondents had consented to Schemes Nos. 334, 335 and 336 through Bashir Ahmad; and wrongly throught as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, against the record, that there was no such consent with regard to the said schemes; and further that the consent was only on Scheme No. 326. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to pages 8, 9 and 10 of Paper Rook No. II to show that Bashir Ahmad had given consent on schemes Nos. 334, 335 and 336. On our question, learned counsel was unable to answer in the affirmative, whether the documents relied upon were placed before the learned Judge in the High Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to admit the additional evidence at this stage. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the question of alleged consent .From the respondents' side was resolved by the learned Single Judge on consideration of two aspects, one with regard to the conduct of Bashir Ahmad pointed out above ; and the other, related to the fact that the respondents were not served in time for appearance before the Collector. The learned Judge in this behalf observed that "it cannot be said that the respondents were a consenting party". Learned
---
## Page 2
counsel has not been able to overcome this second point noted in the impugned order as a reason for not accepting the plea of respondents' consent raised from the petitioner's side. Thus we find no force in this petition, and the same is dismissed.