WAZIR KHAN AND 5 Others vs BUDH SINGH AND 5 Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of certain agricultural land allotments by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner. The petitioners, representing the deceased original claimants, argued that the cancellation was improper because their entitlements were not determined in accordance with the original revenue records (Fard Haqiat) received from India. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the entries in the relevant columns of the Fard Haqiat were correctly interpreted and applied in determining the petitioners' land entitlements. Upon reviewing the papers, the Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners' contention regarding the potential misinterpretation of these revenue records. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the true import of the entries. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the Court issued an interim order restraining both the petitioners and the respondents from alienating or disposing of the disputed land, holding that such a measure was necessary in the interest of justice to preserve the status quo.
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal when there is a potential misinterpretation of revenue records received from India regarding land entitlements?
- Can the Supreme Court issue an interim order restraining both parties from alienating disputed land pending the final disposal of an appeal?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIK J.-The petitioners are the legal representatives of Kohli deceased, who had submitted claim Form No. 14201 and 2342 regarding agricultural land abandoned by him and his brother Chohtu in an village Pattan Kalan, Tehsil Tajara, Alwar State.
2. As a result of the certificates issued by the General Record Office on these claims, certain agricultural land was confirmed in the names of both the claimants. Subsequently on an application from respondent No.1 the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelled certain portion of the land on the ground that it was allotted in excess of the entitlements. The peti--tioners challenged the orders up to the level of the Lahore High Court in W. P. 252/R. Of 1973, but failed. They now seek special leave to appeal One of the arguments advanced in support of the petition is that the petitioners' rights have not been determined in accordance with the original revenue record received from India.
3. After having gone through the papers before us, we feel that this point, amongst others, seems to have some force, and the true import of the entriesthe relevant columns of Fard Haqiat received from India deserves examina--tion by this Court. We, therefore, grant special leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the private respondent A be restrained from disposing of the disputed land till this appeal is decided We feel, however, that it is in the interest of justice to make such order no, only against these respondents, but against the petitioners as well.
5. We. Therefore, direct that both the parties shall not alienate or dispose of the disputed land in any manner till this appeal is disposed of. Leave granted.