INAYAT KHAN MALIK vs N. W.F.P. Through Secretary, Forest Department And Other
The petitioner sought a declaration of exclusive entitlement to royalty payments derived from tree-cutting in specific forest compartments, relying on partition deeds dated 1932 and 1961. The trial court rejected this claim, finding that the 1932 partition deed only addressed the 'Bandajat' (pasture lands) of the village and did not partition the forest area, which remained the joint property of three tribes. This finding was affirmed on appeal by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the petition for leave to appeal against these concurrent findings. The Court held that the lower courts' determinations were based on questions of fact. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate that these findings were vitiated by misreading or non-reading of material evidence, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent judgments. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless the petitioner can establish that such findings resulted from a misreading or non-reading of material evidence.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Can a partition deed limited to pasture lands be construed as a partition of forest property?
ORDER
NASIM HASSAN SHAH, J.-- The question for determination in the suit filed by the petitioners was whether their claim that they were exclusively entitled to the royalty fixed for the cutting of the trees from compartments 17 and 19, situated within the limits of the forest area, was well-founded ? In this connection the petitioners placed reliance upon a partition deed, dated 25-8-1932 as also on the subsequent deed, dated 26-6-1961.
2. The learned trial Court negatived the claim of the petitioners holding that by the partition deed of 25-8-1932 only the Bandajat of the village, comprising pasture lands were partitioned but that there was no partition of the forest of the village and that this did not belong to the petitioners alone but continued to remain the joint property of the three tribes. The above finding was upheld, on appeal, by a Division Bench the Peshawar High Court who held that although Bandajat of the village comprising pasture lands were partitioned in the year 1932 but there was no partition of the forest of the village which continued to be the joint property of the three tribes. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Swat and the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. We have heard Mr. Inayat Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition and Mr. M. Sardar Khan who appeared in support of the caveat filed by the respondents.
4. The findings recorded by the Courts below are findings on questions of fact and Mr. Inayat Ullah Khan could not show that these findings stood vitiated on account of misreading or non-reading of any material evidence. Accordingly, no ground for interference has been made out.