PAHNA and others vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition filed by the petitioners regarding a consolidation dispute. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent findings of fact rendered by revenue authorities regarding consolidation of land and previous possession warrant interference in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that since the revenue forums and the High Court examined the record and determined that the petitioners' land was properly consolidated with no shortage in entitlement and that previous possession was duly considered, no illegality was committed. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that questions of fact settled by specialized revenue authorities based on record scanning will not be interfered with absent legal infirmity.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities regarding land consolidation can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a landowner have a vested right to claim specific Khasra numbers during consolidation regardless of prior possession and entitlement limits?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent factual determinations of revenue forums that contain no legal illegality?
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 7-2-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioners.
2. Facts briefly stated are that the consolidation operation of villageNawan Saggu, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha, was completed on 26-4-1972. Being aggrieved, the petitioner's brother (Sultan) filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Sargodha through his order, dated 14-6-1973 and the case was remanded to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Jauharabad. However, appeal was filed by Ahmed Bukhsh (Respondent No,3) against the said order which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner Consolidation on 24-9-1973 who upheld the remand order. Thereafter, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, took up the matter and gave hearing to all the parties concerned. He made adjustment 'by making separate block through his order, dated 14-5-1976. Ahmed Bakhsh (respondent No,3) filed an appeal assailing the above order, which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner vide his order, dated 2-7-1978.
RevisionPetition filed by the petitioners against the same Was also dismissed by the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab on 15-3-1980. Constitutional Petition filed against the same has also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, through the impugned order, dated 7-2-2000. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
'13. It is inter alia, argued that the previous possession of the parties has not been taken into consideration while effecting consolidation.
4. We have considered the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the Revenue forums after taking into account the respective pleas of the parties, dismissed claim of the petitioners. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the Member, hoard of Revenue, which has been maintained by the learned Single Judge. The determination is as under:--- "4. The record shows that the petitioner's land has been consolidated at two places. The bigger plot is at the place where he held major portion of his land before consolidation. The petitioner is benefited. There is also no shortage in his entitlement. Instead there is an excess of 12 Marlas in terms of Class 1. The Khata of the petitioner was joint before consolidation. The request of the petitioner to allot Khasra Nos. 7 and 10 of Square No, 1967 cannot be acceded to as he has already got Khasra Nos.1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 (total 35 Kanals in Rectangle No, 1967). Therefore, he cannot claim more area at this place as he was in possession of 10 Kanals at this place before consolidation. I see no force in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed."
5 The question of fact after scanning the record has beendetermined by the Revenue Authorities and no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge in maintaining the same reference is made to the cases of "Muhammad Badar-ul-Munir v. Chairman, Arbitration Council and 2 others"
1989 SCM R 1097 and "Allah Rehman and others v. Amtul Qayyum and another" 1989 SCM R 1817.
6. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petitionbeing without merit is dismissed and leave refused.