Pakistan Case Law
2006 SCMR 959

Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH through L.Rs,s vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and otherss

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 SCMR 959
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,2477(L) of 2001
Date2004-10-04
Judge(s)Khalil-ur-Rehman, Falak Sher and M. Javed Buttar
Authored byM. Javed Buttar
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the deceased petitioner against the cancellation of his alternate State land allotment. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of the revenue tribunals regarding fraud, misrepresentation, and interpolation in the revenue records to secure alternate land were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the fraudulent manipulation of revenue records by the allottee in connivance with the field staff were properly arrived at after granting ample opportunity of hearing, and the High Court correctly declined to substitute its own findings. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact recorded by revenue tribunals based on evidence of fraud and interpolation cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction unless a clear illegality is shown.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether alternate State land allotment obtained through interpolations in the revenue record is liable to be cancelled?
  • Can the High Court substitute its own findings of fact for the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue tribunals in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether an allottee who secured land through fraud and misrepresentation is entitled to retain proprietary rights?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
Supreme Court of Pakistanalternate State land allotmentGrow More Food Schemeinterpolation in revenue recordfraud and misrepresentationcancellation of allotmentconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings

ORDER

' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 2-5-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No,284 of 1984, instituted by the deceased petitioner was dismissed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the successors of the deceased petitioner and have also gone through the documents attached with this petition.

3. Syed Mazhar Hussain, the deceased petitioner, was allotted State land under Grow More Food Scheme on 24-11-1956, in Tehsil Jaranwala District Faisalabad in 1961 the land under the allotment was included in the Scheme of temporary cultivation. The petitioner, therefore, applied for the allotment of alternate State land under the Government instructions dated 26-4-1971 detailed in the impugned judgment. The Collector, Faisalabad, vide his order dated 22-11-1973 declared him eligible to get the alternate land and he was allotted the land in dispute on 22-12-1973. The proprietary rights of the same were conferred on him on 23-12-1980. On the complaint of the locals that the deceased petitioner had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of his original tenancy, therefore, he was not eligible to get alternate land and proprietary rights, the Collector entrusted the complaint to EAC(R), Faisalabad who submitted report to the Collector to the effect that the allottee was not in self-cultivation of his original tenancy and had secured the orders of alternate land through interpolations in the entries in the Khasra Girdawari by means of ink remover and fake entries in the Revenue Record in his favor through the concerned Patwari. The permission for the review of orders dated 22-11-1973, 22-12-1973 and 23-12-1980 was obtained from the Commissioner.

The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad, after hearing the allottee vide his order dated 16- 4-1983 gave a findings that the entries had been manipulated by the ink remover in order to obtain undue benefit of alternate land and that the allottee had forged the said entries in connivance with the field staff. Consequently, it was held that he (the deceased petitioner) was not eligible for the alternate allotment and the proprietary rights thereof. The above mentioned orders were reviewed, the allotment was cancelled and the land was resumed in favor of the State. The Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad vide his order, dated 22-11-1983, dismissed the appeal of the deceased petitioner. He arrived at the conclusion that the interpolation had been made in the Revenue Record with the connivance of field staff and the alternate allotment had been secured through fraud and misrepresentation and issued the necessary directions for the registration of case against Mazhar Hussain Shah and the concerned revenue field staff for making interpolations in the Revenue Record. The revision petition (ROR No,2597 of 1983) of the deceased petitioner was dismissed by Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore on 3-1-1984. He affirmed the concurrent findings of the forums below. In this background, the Constitution petition was dismissed through impugned judgment with an observations that the writ petitioner was granted ample opportunity .To rebut the allegations qua interpolations in the Revenue Record with the connivance of Patwari before three Tribunals below but he had failed to discharge his onus. It was held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings for the findings recorded by the Tribunals below. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment, which in our view is unexceptionable.

4. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and .

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.