ABDUR RASHID vs MUHAMMAD AZHAR And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed against the final order of the Board of Revenue dated 9-8-1977 concerning consolidation proceedings in village Kot Daska, District Sialkot. The core legal question involves the propriety of interfering with concurrent revenue authority decisions regarding a consolidation scheme confirmed in 1971. The Supreme Court held that no grounds existed for re-examining the matter or interfering with the High Court's order, particularly as the High Court's decision was duly based on established precedents of this Court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings and orders of revenue authorities and the High Court in consolidation matters where the decision correctly relies on settled judicial precedents.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the High Court upholding a decision of the Board of Revenue in consolidation proceedings?
- Does a consolidation scheme confirmed by revenue authorities warrant re-examination by the Supreme Court when the High Court's judgment is based on established precedents?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--In this case certain orders, passed in relation to the consolidation proceedings of village Kot Daska, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot,, are being challenged.
2. The Scheme of Consolidation was confirmed on 13-3-1971 and the pros and cons thereof have been under examination of various Revenue Officers including the Board of Revenue. A learned Member of the Board of Revenue finally disposed of the matter vide order, dated 9-8-1977. The last-mentioned order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition and the High Court relying on two decisions of this Court in Pir Muhammad Farid Jan v.
Colonization Officer, Hyderabad and 4 others PLD 1965 SC 399 and Muhammad. Hussain and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 dismissed the writ petition.
3. This petition for leave to appeal has been moved to challenge the aforementioned order of the High Court.
4. We do not find any reason for re-examining this whole matter again and find no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court, especially when it is based on two decisions of this Court.