GHULAM NABI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld orders passed by revenue authorities regarding land consolidation proceedings in village Kapurowali, Tehsil and District Sialkot. The petitioner challenged the consolidation scheme, alleging that the redistribution of land resulted in the fragmentation of his holdings into more plots and an inequitable allocation of land quality. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had demonstrated valid grounds to interfere with the consolidation scheme finalized by the revenue authorities. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139), the Court observed that the mere splitting of holdings into different plots is not a valid ground to challenge consolidation proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate his factual claims, as the record indicated that the number of his plots had actually decreased post-consolidation and that the overall quality of his land allocation had improved.
- Does the splitting of land holdings into different plots constitute a valid ground for challenging consolidation proceedings?
- Can a petitioner successfully challenge a consolidation scheme based on allegations of inferior land quality when the record demonstrates an overall improvement in land allocation?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J. ------During the course of consolidation of the land of village Kapurowali, Tehsil and District Silakot a scheme distributing the land between the land owners was contirmed on 24-8-1963 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.)/Collector (hereinafter called Collector for the sake of brevity).Different land owners who felt aggrieved from their respective wandas filed appeals which were accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Cons). On 18-4-1971. And the matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision of the cases of the respective parties.In the present case we are concerned with respondents Nos. 4 and 5 whose appeal against the petitioner was similarly remanded.
2 After remand the Collector made some changes and prepared new modified wandas for petitioner as well as respondentsNos.4 and 5 on 30-10-1976.The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as it was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner(Cons). On 9-3-1977 and a revision filed by the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the M.B.R. (Punjab)
Lahore on 6-8-1978.The petitioner then challenged these orders by means of writ petition No. 4144 of 1978 which too brought no fruit and was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 12-12-1978. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. We asked the learned counsel as to what was his precise objection with regard to the wands of his client--and how was he aggrieved from the orders above-mentioned ? Firstly he titled to object to the consolidation operation of the whole village, but when we told him that the case of the whole village was not before us, as neither the land of the whole village was the subject of dispute and nor the whole body of land owners of the village was a party in this case he falt difficulty in processing his case in that direction. When therefore, asked to confine his submissions to the grievances of his own client, he submitted that the consolidation has resulted in further splitting up his holding in store plots and places as compared to his position before consolidation. Apart from the fact that this is no ground to find fault with consolidation proceedings as laid down by this Court in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139) even otherwise on factual plane the learned counsel could not substantiate this plea, and rather the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 and 5, pointed out that previous number of plots of the petitioner were more viz.-7 `but after consolidation it had been reduced to 5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner argued that his client has got less area of superior quality land more area of inferior quality, but here again when his attention was drawn to that chart contained at page 32 of the paper book-pare. 6 of the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 9-3-1977-- which showed that on the whole he had rather been better off, the learned counsel had no answer.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.