MUHAMMAD SADIQ Alias MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE AND 3 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning a consolidation of holdings case. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in finding that the respondents had not consented to consolidation schemes numbered 334, 335, and 336, arguing that the court ignored evidence of consent given by one Bashir Ahmad. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the documents purportedly evidencing this consent were ever presented before the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to admit this additional evidence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's decision was also predicated on the finding that the respondents were not served in time for their appearance before the Collector, a point the petitioner failed to refute. Finding no merit in the contention that the respondents were consenting parties, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, affirming that appellate courts will not consider evidence not previously placed before the lower forum.
- Can a petitioner introduce additional evidence in the Supreme Court that was not presented before the High Court?
- Does the failure to serve notice on respondents in consolidation proceedings invalidate the claim of consent?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's factual findings regarding consent when the petitioner fails to challenge all grounds of the impugned order?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL AULLAH, J. -Leave to appeal has been sought from order, dated 26-8-1975 of the Lahore High Court whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed a Constitutionalpetition, rising out of a consolidation of holding case.
2. In view of the detailed reasons given by the teams d Judge in support of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention, namely, that the learned judge ignored the fact that the respondents had consented to Schemes Nos. 334, 335 and 336 through Bashir Ahmad; and wrongly throught as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, against the record, that there was no such consent with regard to the said schemes; and further that the consent was only on Scheme No. 326.
3. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to pages 8, 9 and 10 of Paper Rook No. II to show that Bashir Ahmad had given consent on schemes Nos. 334, 335 and 336. On our question, learned counsel was unable to answer in the affirmative, whether the documents relied upon were placed before the learned Judge in the High Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to admit the additional evidence at this stage.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the question of alleged consent .From the respondents' side was resolved by the learned Single Judge on consideration of two aspects, one with regard to the conduct of Bashir Ahmad pointed out above ; and the other, related to the fact that the respondents were not served in time for appearance before the Collector. The learned Judge in this behalf observed that "it cannot be said that the respondents were a consenting party". Learned counsel has not been able to overcome this second point noted in the impugned order as a reason for not accepting the plea of respondents' consent raised from the petitioner's side. Thus we find no force in this petition, and the same is dismissed.