ALLAH BAKHSH AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a consolidation matter originating from village Gadhai, Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali, where a consolidation scheme initiated in 1961 was finalized in April 1965. The petitioners challenged subsequent orders through appeals and revisions before revenue authorities up to the Board of Revenue, and eventually filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 18-11-1975. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition and failing to grant compensation for improvements made by the petitioners on surrendered land. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not demonstrate any legal defect in the impugned judgment of the High Court and that the High Court was not the proper forum to grant compensation for improvements made during consolidation proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that revenue authorities and writ courts are not mandated to grant such compensation relief under the circumstances presented.
- Whether the High Court is the appropriate forum to grant compensation for improvements made on land surrendered during consolidation proceedings?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be sustained without showing a legal defect in the impugned High Court judgment?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 18-11-1975, dismissing their writ petition in a consolidation matter relating to village Gadhai Tehsil Bhakkar District Mianwali. The Consolidation Scheme was started and sanctioned as far back as 1961 and was finally confirmed in April, 1965. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal against the confirmation of the consolidation before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, who made certain changes therein. Both the parties felt aggrieved against that order, filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, which were disposed of by order dated 27-8- 1969. The Member Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition of the respondents vide order dated 27-8-1969 but dismissed that of the petitioners. He set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the order of the Collector. Still not being satisfied the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 12-11-1975.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has no been able to show any legal defect in the impugned judgment. The only grievance made by him is that the petitioners should have been granted compensation by the Revenue authorities for the improvements made them in the land they were made to surrender as a result of the consolidation proceedings. This question has already been considered by the High Court, but it was not for the High Court to have granted this relief.
3. With the above observation the petition is dismissed.