ALLAH BAKHSH And Another vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the vendee-petitioners. Respondent No.1 had successfully decreed a pre-emption suit as a tenant of the land before the Revenue Courts. The petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner, who affirmed the decree, and subsequently filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed as time-barred. The petitioners then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which dismissed their writ petition. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court rightly declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction regarding a time-barred revision and concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that failure to avail an adequate remedy within the prescribed period is a sufficient ground for dismissing a constitutional petition. Furthermore, whether sufficient cause exists for condoning delay is a matter for the Board of Revenue to decide and cannot ordinarily be challenged via writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the failure to file a revision petition within the prescribed period of limitation constitutes a sufficient ground for dismissing a subsequent constitutional petition?
- Can a decision of the Board of Revenue refusing to condone delay in filing a revision petition ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue courts regarding tenancy status can be re-agitated in constitutional jurisdiction?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 26-2- 1983 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioners.
2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of a sale of agricultural land. He claimed that he was the tenant in the land covered by the sale. The suit was decreed by the Collector. The petitioners who were the vendees preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner who upheld the finding of the Collector with regard to the status of respondent No.1 in the land in question. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. It was dismissed on the ground that it had been preferred after the prescribed time. The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the decree passed in favour of respondent No.1. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is to be noticed that the petitioners had a remedy before the Board of Revenue. They did not avail of it within the prescribed time. This by itself was a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the constitutional petition filed by them in the High Court.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they had moved an application before the Board of Revenue for condonation of the delay but it was illegally rejected by the Board. A copy of the said application has not been placed on the record. On our inquiry learned counsel stated that the explanation offered in support of the prayer for condonation of the delay was that the petitioners' counsel before the Board had misunderstood the provisions with regard to the time prescribed for filing of a revision petition. The question whether sufficient cause for condonation of the delay had been shown was one for the Board to decide. Its decision in this regard could not ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
5.Learned counsel then contended that respondent No.1 was not tenant and as such the revenue Courts were not competent to entertain his suit. It is difficult to accept this contention in view of the concurrent finding of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner which after further examination was confirmed by the High Court.
6.This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 20 cases
- CHERAT CEMENT CO. LTD., NOWSHERA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad 2023 PLD 46
- Mst. Aneeqa Shoail, etc vs Lahore Development Authority, etc 2022 LHC 5987, 2024 MLD 183
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Chairman Board of Trustees Employees Old Age 2023 PLC 15
- Muhammad Ibrahim & anothers vs P.O Sindh & Others 2021 SHC 502
- MUHAMMA GUL vs GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief 2019 PLD Peshawar 184
- ALI GOHAR vs PROVINCE OF SINDH and others 2018 CLC 1999
- AKHTAR BILLO through Attorney vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 2014 CLC 1730
- MUHAMMAD ABBASI vs S.H.O. BHARA KAHU and 7 others 2010 PLD Supreme Court 969
- UNITED BANK LIMITED through Manager vs BANKING MOHTASIB PAKISTAN 2006 CLD 1226
- UNITED BANK LIMITED vs BANKING MOHTASIB PAKISTAN and others 2006 PLJ Lahore 1045
- MOULA BUX alias MOULEDINO vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION HATRI GHULAM SHAH 2003 YLR 1316
- GHULAM ALI alias SADORO Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION VEEHAR, DISTRICT LARKANA 2003 YLR 2168
- ABDUL WAHAB vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary, Home 2004 YLR 2599
- KHAN BAHADUR vs SHER AHMED and 3 others 1993 PLD Peshawar 241
- M/s. CHOHAN FLYING COACH SERVICE, SAHIWAL vs REGIONAL TRANSPORT 1993 CLC 1853
- RUPALI POLYESTER LIMITED vs EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION (K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 269)
- RUPALI POLYESTER LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION and another 1991 PLC 318
- MERAJ LIMITED vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through its Chief Secretary, Goverment of Punjab, Lahore and 4 others 2012 PLJ Lahore 568
- Muhammad Ibrahim vs Chairman Board of Trustees Employees Old Age 2022 PHC 184
- M/s Cherat Cement Co. Ltd, Nowshera through its Senior Manager 2022 PHC 568