IRSHAD BIBI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the High Court, which had upheld an order of the Senior Member, Board of Revenue concerning the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner was in lawful pre-1961 occupation and entitled to the transfer of the disputed shop situated on Khasra No. 628, and whether he had validly relinquished his claim in favor of the National Bank of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the Board of Revenue and the High Court were unexceptionable, as the petitioner failed to prove possession of the correct Khasra number through his documents and had attempted to obtain orders through misrepresentation after relinquishing his claim. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with well-reasoned findings of fact based on thorough inquiries and record assessment where the petitioner's conduct involves misrepresentation and relinquishment of rights.
- Whether High Court can interfere with findings of fact by the Board of Revenue based on thorough inquiry?
- Does relinquishment of a claim to evacuee property disentitle a party from its transfer?
- Is a party who misrepresents facts in judicial proceedings entitled to discretionary constitutional relief?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑ ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the Constitution petition filed by him against the order passed by Senior Member, Board of Revenue dated 24‑11‑1991, was dismissed.
2.The petitioner claims that plot bearing Khasra Nos. 622, 623, 624, 625, 627 and 628, all measuring 8459 sq.ft. situated at Trench Road, Chaman, is the property of Bazar Fund and superstructure raised over this area is evacuee originally belonging to one Mst. Gopi daughter of Havid Mal. He claims to be in exclusive and undisturbed possession of a shop measuring 380 sq.ft. on a part of Khasra No. 628 since before the Partition. He claims to have paid rent to the Custodian of Evacuee Properties and ground rent has also been paid by him. On 20‑5‑1967 he came to know that the superstructure of the shop has been transferred to the National Bank of Pakistan. However, on his application on 8‑4‑1972 superstructure was transferred to him. He also obtained sanction for lease of land underneath the shop from the Controlling Authority. National Bank of Pakistan had filed appeal against the order of transfer in favour of the petitioner which remained pending till the repeal of evacuee laws. The appeal was dismissed as time‑barred by the Member, Board of Revenue, which was challenged in a Constitution petition and the case was remanded to the Member, Board of Revenue with direction to hold inquiry as to who was in occupation of the premises before 1‑1‑1961 and who is entitled to the transfer of the disputed property and then decide the matter in accordance with law. After remand the case was decided against the petitioner can 28‑10‑1989 which was challenged by him in the High Court, The case was again remanded to the Member, Board of Revenue, The appeal was dismissed as none of the parties had approached on the date of hearing. It was, however restored and appeal was accepted. It was again remanded and ultimately by Order dated 24-11-1991 appeal was accepted against which a Constitution petition was filed by the petitioner: The learned Judge in Chambers took note of the fact that most of the documents produced by the petitioner to prove his possession and payment of rent were not in respect of the property bearing Khasra No. 628, on which the disputed shop is situated. A list of eight documents has been mentioned to substantiate this conclusion. The learned Judge further observed as follows:‑‑
"Besides this issue he has dealt with in detail regarding the conduct of the petitioner and concluded that the petitioner has tried to obtain the order by misrepresentation as is evident from Murasala No. 210 dated 3‑4‑1973 in which the following para. was quoted:‑‑
Another important factor in this regard is that petitioner vide receipt Annexure R/3, dated 10th November, 1966 relinquished his claim in favour of National Bank of Pakistan. The original of the same was perused by the M.B.R. and returned. On the basis of this evidence and perusal of record the M.B.R. came to the conclusion that claim was relinquished by the petitioner on the above date. I see no reason to take a different view because the M.B.R. had conducted a thorough enquiry and after perusal of the record and re‑assessing the evidence carne to the conclusion that petitioner had no entitlement. Such conclusions are based on good reasons which are not extraneous, therefore, in my considered view the conclusions drawn are unexceptionable."
3.The learned Judge further considered the documents and facts and concluded that after thorough enquiry it revealed that these receipts pertain to another Khasra number and thus the petitioner misrepresented the facts even in this Court. Since he was not in possession before 1‑1‑1961 of the disputed property and that despite his withdrawal in favour of National Bank he dragged the National Bank in litigation for about more than 15 years, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue." We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the observations made and conclusions drawn by the learned Judge in Chambers. Leave is refused.
Contempt application, being without any merit, is also dismissed.
A.A./S‑894/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.