RAFIQ KHAN AND Others vs RAHMAT KHAN AND Other
This matter concerns a dispute over a consolidation scheme confirmed by the Collector (Consolidation), Depalpur, in 1973. The petitioners challenged the scheme, asserting entitlement to a specific Killa (Killa No. 3/2 of Square No. 63), which they claimed was a garden, or alternatively, seeking compensation for it. Following the dismissal of their revision petition by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, the petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their petition in limine. The High Court reasoned that the garden did not exist at the time of the consolidation operations. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners attempted to rely on Khasra Girdawaris from 1976 and 1977 to prove the existence of the garden. The Supreme Court upheld the lower findings, noting that the petitioners failed to provide evidence that the garden existed in 1973, the relevant time for consolidation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the consolidation was conducted appropriately and the petitioners' holdings were consolidated without prejudice.
- Is a consolidation scheme subject to challenge based on the existence of land features that were not present at the time of the consolidation operations?
- Does the failure to provide evidence of land status at the relevant time of consolidation preclude a claim for specific allotment or compensation?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed in limine when the petitioner fails to establish the factual basis for their claim at the relevant time of the administrative action?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-A consolidation scheme confirmed by the Collector (Consolidation), Depalpur, on 15-3-1973 became subject-matter of litigation. After a revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue. Punjab, on 12-7-1978, they invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. Their case was that Killa No. 3/2 of Square No. 63 which was a garden should have been given to them or in the alternative they should have been compensated for it. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on 16-9-1978 on the view that at the time of the consolidation operations the garden was not in existence as such the question of the petitioners' entitlement to it or of compensation for it did not arise.
2. Learned counsel attempted, by reference to Khasra Girdawaris, for the years Rabi 1976 and Kharif 1977, to show that Killa No. 3/2 of Square No. 63 is a garden. He, however, had no document to show that it had been a garden in 1973 which was the relevant time. The learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, had found that the garden was a recent creation and had not been in existence when the consolidation operations had stated in the village. This being so, the High Court had rightly rejected the petitioners' plea. The petitioners' holdings had been consolidated at two places against previous three and, as found by the learned Member (Consolidation). Board of Revenue, Punjab, the shape of their new area was not awkward. The parties had already agreed that the land be distributed without class of soil.
3. In these circumstances we find no merit in this petition for leave to appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.