AFZAL ALI GILL vs THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The petitioner, an unsuccessful plaintiff, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his civil revision petition. The petitioner was a grantee of land under the Tube-well Sinking Scheme administered by the Thal Development Authority, whose land was resumed in 1958 for non-fulfilment of conditions. In 1979, the petitioner instituted a civil suit challenging the resumption, alleging a lack of notice and hearing. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, finding that due notice had been served. The High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision petition. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was afforded a show-cause notice prior to the resumption of the grant. The Supreme Court held that concurrent factual findings by the lower courts established that proper notice had indeed been issued and served, and the petitioner failed to repudiate such evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, laying down that concurrent factual findings regarding service of notice, supported by record evidence, will not be interfered with in leave to appeal.
- Whether concurrent factual findings regarding the service of notice can be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is resumption of land valid when supported by evidence of proper notice and service to the grantee?
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner who was the unsuccessful plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 16-5-1982 whereby his civil revision petition was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioner was a grantee of land under Tube-well Sinking Scheme under the That Development Authority. He received the possession of the land on 1-8-1953. It was resumed from him in the year 1958 on the ground of non-fulfilment of the conditions of the grant. He instituted a civil suit in the year 1979 challenging the resumption of the grant from him on the ground mainly that he had received no notice and was not afforded hearing in the matter. His suit was decreed on 14-7-1980 but on appeal the Additional District Judge on 3-3-1982 reversed the decision holding that the petitioner had received due notice of the proceedings culminating in resumption of the grant. The petitioner then approached the High Court in civil revision which too was dismissed by the impugned order.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that from the evidence on record it was established that no show-cause notice had been given to the grantee before resuming the grant.
4. We have examined the statement of petitioner's own witness Shamshad Hussain which has the effect of establishing that before the resumption of the grant was ordered, notice was issued to the petitioner and there was material on record to show that it was served. The petitioner did not personally appear to repudiate such evidence. The Additional District Judge and the learned Judge in the High Court both concurred in the factual finding that the resumption of the grant was not without service of proper notice.
5. ' In the circumstances, there is no question of law to be further examined and leave to appeal is refused.