MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs SULTAN AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition challenging the revisional order passed by a Member, Board of Revenue in a consolidation matter. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court rightly declined to entertain arguments concerning factual inquiries and matters not raised before the revenue tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact regarding the opportunity of hearing suffered from no legal infirmity and that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to entertain an argument regarding land allocation that was not pressed before the Board of Revenue. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that factual arguments not raised before the subordinate tribunal cannot ordinarily be entertained for the first time in writ jurisdiction, and bare statements of counsel cannot outweigh the recorded contents of judicial and quasi-judicial orders.
- Can a party raise a factual argument in writ jurisdiction that was not pressed before the lower tribunal?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to entertain unpressed factual contentions in consolidation matters is unexceptionable?
- Can the bare statement of counsel regarding the raising of points be preferred over the contents of relevant tribunal orders?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFLAL ZULLAH, J.-Order passed by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, in the revisional jurisdiction in a consolidation matter having been challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, the petitioners failed to obtain the desired relief, therefore, they have sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel, as in addition to the arguments raised in the High Court, has tried to advance other arguments on merits, with the assertion that they also, were taken in the memo. Of the writ petition.
2. ' One of the arguments raised in the High Court was that the petitioners were not,afforded due opportunity of hearing. This point has been decided against them on a finding of fact which does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise. The argument that the land originally belonging to the petitioners should have been allowed to remain with them at least insofar as the major parcel thereof is concerned was not pressed before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, the learned judge in the High Court refused to entertain it in writ jurisdiction. The exercise of discretion in this behalf is not against any principle. The question raised in the High Court was relatable to factual inquiry and assessm ent. It should have been pressed before the Tribunal concerned so that the High Court would have been benefited by the opinion of the. Tribunal. The refusal to entertain such an argument in the circumstances of the case is unexceptionable.
3. Learned counsel tried to assert it that all the points were raised before the learned Member, Board of Revenue and also before the High Court. We regret, his bare statement cannot be preferred over the contents of the relevant orders. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.