MUHAMMAD SHER And Another vs MUHAMMAD SHER And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld concurrent factual findings regarding the sale price in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a finding of fact regarding the sale price determined by revenue authorities could be interfered with by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the sale price is a question of fact, which cannot be successfully challenged in writ jurisdiction, and consequently refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower forums and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact affirmed through concurrent lower judicial or revenue forums are immune from interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the determination of a sale price in a pre-emption suit is a question of fact?
- Can a finding of fact regarding a sale price be successfully challenged in the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The Collector, while decreeing the pre-emption suit of the petitioners, granted them a decree on payment of Rs.1,29,000. The petitioners challenged the finding of the Collector regarding the amount of sale price through an appeal. But this was dismissed (by the Additional Commissioner). Their further revision to the Board of Revenue was also dismissed and the writ petition filed against these orders, before the High Court, also failed. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The question as to whether the sale price was indeed Rs.1,29,000 is clearly a question of fact and any finding thereon could not successfully be challenged before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, rightly refused to interfere and such a decision cannot be interfered with by this Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Farkhanda Bibi etc vs Mehmood Munier etc 2017 LHC 3590