MANZOOR HUSSAIN and otherss vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), BOARD OF REVENUE and otherss
This matter arises from the consolidation of holdings and consequent distribution of Wandas under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings and orders of the consolidation authorities, including the Board of Revenue which had scrutinized the issue in revisional and review jurisdictions, by filing a constitutional petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions of fact regarding consolidation cannot be examined in extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, and noted that a land deficiency of up to ten Marlas was permissible, whereas the petitioners' deficiency was only eight Marlas. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's order, holding that the impugned decision was not open to any exception. The Court thus dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that factual determinations by specialized consolidation authorities regarding land distribution and minor deficiencies within permissible limits do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction.
- Can the High Court examine questions of fact relating to the consolidation of holdings and distribution of Wandas in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether a deficiency of land up to ten Marlas is permissible in consolidation proceedings?
- Are concurrent findings of consolidation authorities and the Board of Revenue open to exception when based on factual determinations?
- Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Consolidation of holdings and consequent distribution of Wandas is essentially a question to be examined and decided by the Consolidation Authorities under Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The matter was examined at various stages including the Board of Revenue which had occasioned to scrutinize the issue twice i,e, firstly in its revisional jurisdiction and A secondly, on a review filed by the present petitioners. The petitioners then approached the Honourable High Court invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction and their petition failed as it was found by the learned Judge in Chamber that the question being essentially one of the fact could not be gone into by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. It was also mentioned by the learned Single Judge that the deficiency of land upto ten Marlas is permissible and in B the petitioners' case the deficiency was only eight Marlas.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and having perused the material available on record, we find that the impugned order dated 5-9-2000 of the Honourable High Court passed in Writ Petition No,17747 of 2000 is not open any exception. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 2 cases
- Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Member (J.V), Board Of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore etc 2021 PLJ Lahore 213
- Mst. Sulli and others vs Shera and others 2021 PLJ Lahore 479, 2021 YLR 860