BULANDA vs MUNSHI And 5 Other
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of 256 Kanals 3 Marlas of land in village Khola, Tehsil and District Mianwali, between two parties who were both sitting allottees with unsatisfied claims. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner initially allotted the entire land to the respondents, citing the petitioner's failure to file an objection. Upon appeal, the appellate authority ordered a proportionate distribution of the land between the parties, recognizing their equal status as sitting allottees. However, a revisional authority subsequently overturned this decision, reinstating the original allotment solely because the petitioner had failed to object during the initial proceedings. The High Court declined to interfere with this revisional order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying a core legal question regarding whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the appellate order based solely on the lack of an objection, particularly when the petitioner alleged the initial proceedings occurred without proper notice. The Court further questioned whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction in these circumstances.
- Is a revisional authority justified in setting aside an appellate order solely on the ground that no objection was raised during initial proceedings, despite allegations of lack of notice?
- Does the High Court have a duty to interfere in a revisional order that ignores the equal status of sitting allottees in land distribution?
- Can an allotment order be sustained if the proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner were conducted without notice to the affected party?
ORDER
M.S.H.QURAISHI, J.--The contest is in regard to allotment of land measuring 256 Kanals 3 Marlas in village Khola, Tehsil and District Mianwali. Both parties were- sitting allottees in the estate having pending claims unsatisfied. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), however, on 31-8-1972, allotted the entire land in favour of the respondents for the reason that no objection (U2ardari) had been filed. The appellate authority, in the petitioner's appeal, considered it appropriate to allow the units of both parties satisfied in the village and accordingly ordered, on 5-3-1974, the distribution of the land between them proportionately in accordance with the balance of their units. This was, however, upset by the revisional order dated 10-12-1974 on the ground solely that at the the the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ordered the allotment on 31-8-1972, the petitioner had not raised any objection. The High Court declined to interfere in the petitioner's writ petition.
2. There is a concurrent finding by the appellate and the revisional authorities that both parties were sitting allottees in the village and were on equal footing. That being so,- a question arises whether the revising authority was justified in upsetting the appellate order merely on the ground that no objection had been raised when the allotment was being made in favour of the respondents, although it was clearly A alleged by the petitioner that the proceedings before the Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner had been without notice to him; and whether the High Court was justified in not interfering with the said order. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.2,500.