Pakistan Case Law← Search
1984 CLC 430

Mst. KARIM KHATOON vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

Citation1984 CLC 430
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No, 934 of 1981
Date1983-02-11
Judge(s)Muhammad Munir Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' This is a Writ Petition whereby Mst. Karim Khatoon, the petitioner, wants this Court to declare the order, dated 5th May, 1971, passed by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. Learned counsel submits that there is wrong classification of the land inasmuch as higher classification has been made wrongly by declaring "C" category as "A" category. To substantiate the same the learned counsel relies on the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 (Annexure 'A') that 150 Kanals of land which was partitioned by the order of the Revenue Court of Muzaffargarh has been re-partitioned and instead of 150 kanals of Chah Darabi only 50 kanals have been allotted.

3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record. I find that the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue while disposing of the revision vide impugned order, dated 11th March, 1981 has observed as follows :- "I find that Qaim Din had all along been watching the interest of his mother Mst. Karim Khatoon, petitioner, during the consolidation proceedings. He is a literate person and also a Lambarda of the village. He has signed the Khata in the Register Scheme in token of acceptance on behalf of his mother Mst. Karim Khatoon. He had also accepted the wanda of his mother. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the classification of the land or distribution of the plots was not made with the consent of the parties."

' Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to belie or controvert this observation.

4. For these reasons I do not find any substance in the first submission of the learned counsel. As for the second, I find that in the B memorandum of revision this plea has not been taken and as such cannot be allowed to be agitated for the first time before this Court in writ jurisdiction.

5. Furthermore, the consolidation having been done with the consent of the parties it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to challenger the same.

6. For what has been stated above there being no merit in this petition the same is dismissed in limine.

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search