MUHAMMAD HAMIDUDDIN Versus FEROZ AHMED
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition regarding a land consolidation scheme. The dispute arose after the Collector confirmed a consolidation scheme, which was subsequently remanded by the Additional Commissioner. Following the remand, the Collector allotted specific Khasra numbers to the respondents. The petitioners challenged these proceedings, alleging they were not parties to the initial remand order and that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioners had participated in the remand proceedings before the Collector and failed to challenge the Additional Commissioner's order before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no grounds for interference. The Court held that by participating in the remand proceedings before the Collector, the petitioners effectively waived their objections regarding the initial remand order, and that the failure to challenge the Additional Commissioner's order before the Board of Revenue precluded them from raising these issues in writ jurisdiction.
- Does participation in remand proceedings before a Collector constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the initial remand order?
- Can a petitioner challenge an order of an Additional Commissioner in a writ petition if they failed to challenge that order before the Board of Revenue?
- Is a party entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction if they have participated in the proceedings they subsequently seek to challenge?
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave is directed against the order of, the Lahore‑High Court, Lahore dated 15th September 1982 whereby writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the Collector confirmed the consolidation scheme in the village. The respondents challenged the scheme in appeal before the Additional Commissioner who remanded the case to the Collector with certain directions. The Collector took up the case again and allotted some Khasr numbers to the respondents whereupon the present petitioners challenged that order in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who after hearing counsel for the parties and having examined the record dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the petitioners filed revision before the Member, Board of Revenue who dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners. The orders of the Revenue authorities were challenged by way of writ petition but that also failed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. The only ground urged before us by learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the first order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner and case was remanded by him to the Collector they were not made parties in those proceedings. But the record indicates that the Collector on rehearing of the matter made them parties and thereafter even the Board of Revenue had examined the case of the petitioners on merits. However before the High Court the case of the petitioners was that the order was passed by the Additional Commissioner behind their back and it was passed on a time‑barred appeal. The observation of the High Court is that it was open to the petitioners to challenge that order of the Additional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue but they did not do so. On the contrary they took part in the remand proceedings before the Collector.
4. After hearing learned counsel, in our view, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is therefore dismissed.
5. M.I. /M‑562/S Petition dismissed .