NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs EXTRA ASSISTANT COLONIZATION
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional writ petition. The core dispute pertained to whether the petitioners held the subject land as legitimate allottees under the Ejected Tenants Scheme or had obtained entries fraudulently following a temporary lease. The Collector, upon reviewing the records, found that the entries were fraudulent, ordered resumption of the land, and this finding was consistently upheld by the Additional Commissioner, the Board of Revenue, and the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that factual findings of fraud based on evidence and rendered by authorities with competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declined to entertain arguments concerning prior adjudication and protection under Section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, as these points were not raised or argued before the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether concurrent factual findings of fraud established before revenue authorities can be interfered with by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
- Can a party raise a new factual or legal argument before the Supreme Court if it was not raised or pressed before the High Court or Board of Revenue?
- Does Section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 protect a possessor whose allotment entries are found to be fraudulent?
- Section 16, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This Was petition is directed against the judgment dated 21-3-1981 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court who refused to interfere with the order of the Collector, Jauharabad, dated 25-11-1979, which was upheld on appeal by the Additional Commissioner Sargodha Division, Sargodha on 28-2-1980 and on revision by the Board of Revenue, Lahore on 27-11-1980.
2. The question was whether the petitioners who were occupying a piece of land in Juaharabad since 14-3-1960 were holding it as allottees under the Ejected Tenants Scheme or had obtained a temporary lease of this land three years up to 1963 but later on got their names entered by fraudulent means as allottees under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The E.A.O./Collector, Jauharabad, after scrutinizing the relevant record, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not allottees of the land in disputeand accordingly ordered the resumption of the land. This order as already stated, was upheld on appeal by the Additional Commissioner and on revision by the Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioners then moved the Lahore High Court by a writ petition and the learned Judge of the said Court observed that the question before the Collector was whether the entries relied on by the petitioners were genuine or were made fraudulently and on assessment of evidence he had found that the entries were the result of a fraud and that the petitioners were never allotted any land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. This finding being based on evidence and the Collector having the jurisdiction to decide the matter his order could not be interfered with, especially when the same was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue and even the learned Judge in the High Court after scrutinizing the material produced before him was inclined to take the same view. He, therefore, dismissed the writ petition.
3. Mr. M. A. Aziz has attempted to assail the finding of the High Court on the ground that the question whether the petitioners were allottees or not had been raised earlier by one Noor Muhammad and the said dispute 1was adjudicated upon by the Collector, Jauharabad who held that the petitioner No. 1 was indeed the allottee under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and the appeal filed against the above order was also dismissed on 17-4-1973. It is, however, conceded that this circumstance was not relied upon before the Board of Revenue nor does it appear to have been pressed before the High Court, as there is no reference to it in the order of the learned Judge.
4. It is further argued that under section 16 of the Colonization of Govern--ment Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 a person being admittedly in possession of the area for more than three years cannot be dispossessed. This point also does no appear to have been argued before the High Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to examine it at this stage in the first instance.
5. No ground for interference, accordingly, is made out. This petition must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.