Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALLAH BAKHSH AND Others VS Respondent: MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Aslam Riaz Hussain, M. S. H. Qureshi Title: ALLAH BAKHSH AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other Case No.:Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 277 of 1976 Petition No.
1878 of 1969 Date of Judgment:1982-06-20 Reported As: 1982 SCMR 1185 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 18-11-1975, dismissing their writ petition in a consolidation matter relating to village Gadhai Tehsil Bhakkar District Mianwali. The Consolidation Scheme was started and sanctioned as far back as 1961 and was finally confirmed in April, 1965. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal against the confirmation of the consolidation before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, who made certain changes therein. Both the parties felt aggrieved against that order, filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, which were disposed of by order dated 27-8- 1969. The Member Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition of the respondents vide order dated 27-8-1969 but dismissed that of the petitioners. He set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the order of the Collector. Still not being satisfied the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 12-11-1975. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has no been able to show any legal defect in the impugned judgment. The only grievance made by him is that the petitioners should have been granted compensation by the Revenue authorities for the improvements made them in the land they were made to surrender as a result of the consolidation proceedings. This question has already been considered by the High Court, but it was not for the High Court to have granted this relief. 3. With the above observation the petition is dismissed.