ALI BAKHSH vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which upheld the resumption of land allotted to the petitioner by the Thal Development Authority. The land was resumed on 20 November 1958 due to the petitioner's failure to fulfill material conditions of allotment, specifically regarding cultivation, residency, payment of boring test fees for a tube-well, and payment of the first advance installment. The petitioner challenged these findings through a civil suit, an appeal, and a revision petition, all of which were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the lower courts' factual findings were incorrect. The Court held that the issues raised were purely factual in nature. Reaffirming the principle that the Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear omission or misreading of evidence, the Court found no such error. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading or provide evidence contradicting the defaults, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading or omission of evidence?
- Can an allottee challenge the resumption of land based on non-fulfillment of material conditions without proving compliance with those conditions?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The land in dispute which was allotted to the petitioner by the Thal Development Authority was resumed from his name on 20-11-1958, for non-fulfilment of the relevant material conditions of allotment. The petitioner filed a suit to challenge the aforesaid order but without any success as it was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 11-12-1979. The appeal of the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 10-4- 1980 and his revision petition being C.P. 983-D/80 also failed and was dismissed by the High Court on 30-6-1980. It has concurrently been held by all the Courts that the petitioner has not fulfilled the material conditions of allotment inasmuch as (a) he was not cultivating the land, (b) he was not residing in the estate for the last 13/14 years, (c) he did not deposit fees for boring test for installation of a tube-well, and (d) he did not deposit even the first advance instalment.
2. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court.
3. Learned counsel argued that the findings of the Courts below on the matters abovementioned were not correct. The contention has no merit. The subject aforesaid is of a factual nature and it is well-settles that ordinarily a finding of fact is not to be interfered by this Court''' unless it suffers from any omission or misreading of evidence. We asked the learned counsel to point out any such mistake in the impugned order/orders but he was unable to do so. Similarly we asked the learned counsel to show us any document which may point out that the defaults abovementioned did not factually exist on the part of his client but here again he failed to refer to any relevant material.
4. The result is that this case is concluded by a finding of fact and is not fit for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed hereby.