GHULAM RASOOL vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a Lahore High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition against revenue authorities' decisions in consolidation proceedings. The petitioner challenged an order by the Collector, but the appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner was time-barred by approximately two years. The petitioner sought condonation of delay citing illness, which the Additional Commissioner rejected as unsatisfactory. Consequently, both the appeal and a subsequent revision petition before the Board of Revenue were dismissed. The High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings, prompting the current petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with the revenue authorities' discretionary decision regarding the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Commissioner acted within his competence in rejecting the explanation for the delay, and the Board of Revenue correctly upheld this decision. The Court affirmed that where revenue authorities exercise their discretion reasonably within their competence, the High Court is justified in declining to interfere, thereby upholding the finality of the limitation period.
- Can the High Court interfere with a discretionary order of revenue authorities regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Is a decision by revenue authorities to reject an explanation for a two-year delay in filing an appeal within their legal competence?
- Does the dismissal of a time-barred appeal by revenue authorities warrant interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 27-1-1980 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioner against the order of the revenue authorities in consolidation proceedings.
2. On a remand made by the Board of Revenue the Collector effected certain changes in the consolidation scheme. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order of the Collector. The appeal was out of time by about two years. The petitioner moved an application for condonation of the delay. His main excuse was that he was ill and for that reason he could not lodge the appeal within time. The Additional Commissioner who was seized of the appeal did not find this explanation as satisfactory. He dismissed the application for condonation of delay and also the appeal on the ground that it was barred by time. The petitioner moved a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. A learned Member of the Board rejected the revision petition maintaining the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner filed a review application but without any success. He then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. That too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is not disputed that the appeal of the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner was filed when the limitation had expired. The Additional Commissioner rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of the delay as satisfactory. It was a matter well within his competence. His order in this regard was upheld by the Board of Revenue. The High Court, therefore, very properly declined to interfere with the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner. We see no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.