ZOHRA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an appeal regarding a dispute over agricultural land in District Sheikhupura. The land was originally allotted to the respondent in 1955, subsequently cancelled in 1960, and re-allotted to the petitioners in 1961. Following protracted litigation, the High Court allowed the respondent's constitutional petition based on a re-verified claim and remanded the matter to Settlement Authorities to determine the respondent's entitlement and dispose of any excess land according to law. The petitioners challenged this remand, arguing that the re-verification document was not genuine and that, as long-term possessors, they should be entitled to the land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand order was appropriate because the case involved a factual controversy regarding the genuineness of documents that could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that directing the disposal of land 'in accordance with law' is legally sound, as courts cannot dictate a specific outcome contrary to statutory disposal procedures. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Is a remand order appropriate when a case involves a factual controversy regarding the genuineness of documents?
- Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction resolve factual disputes regarding the validity of re-verification documents?
- Is a direction by the High Court to dispose of land 'in accordance with law' legally sufficient?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑ The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 5th October, 1981 whereby their appeal was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties and the litigation concerned agricultural land measuring about 34 Kanals situate in Chak 38‑R. B., Nizampura Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. This land was allotted in 1955 against his verified claim to Boota, respondent No. 1. On information laid by the petitioners of their predecessor‑in‑interest, the entitlement of respondent No. 1 was reduced and this area was cancelled from his name on 9‑12‑1960 and was allotted to the petitioners on 12‑5‑1961. The appeal of the respon dent and his revision against the resumption of the area on re-verification of the claim failed. He instituted a constitutional petition which succeeded mainly on the ground that "on the uzardari filed by the petitioner the Officer Central Record Room re-verified his claim regarding village Pida Rorhi and his entitlement was restored". An order of remand was passed directing the Settlement Authorities "to satisfy the claim of the petitioner, if any, and if there was any excess area after meeting his demand the land should be disposed of in accordance with law". The appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was a remand order and a further examination of the factual controversy in the case with regard to the genuineness of the allotment and the correctness of the re-verification was involved.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subsequent re-verification which was relied upon in the High Court is itself not a genuine document and the decision should not have been based upon it. It has further been contended that as the petitioners have been the allottees in possession of the land for quite a long time, on resumption the direction should not have been to dispose of the land in accordance with the law but it should be given to the petitioner.
4. We find that there being a factual controversy requiring decision between the parties, the remand order was the most appropriate one, for such a factual inquiry could not be undertaken and completed in the High Court particularly so where the genuineness of the document itself was to be examined. The direction that on resumption, if at all it takes place disposal should be in accordance with law is inoffensive because the petitioner cannot claim anything else nor the Courts can direct any other manner of disposal. This is not a fit case for grant of leave and leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
5. Petition dismissed.