LAL DIN vs MUHAMMAD HABIB And 3 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside orders passed by Consolidation Authorities regarding the petitioner's possession of disputed land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming to be a tenant under a previous owner at the time a consolidation scheme was sanctioned, could maintain that status despite a prior High Court finding to the contrary. The petitioner argued that the Consolidation Authorities were free to re-evaluate the facts upon remand. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the High Court's previous judgment had conclusively determined that the petitioner did not possess the status of a tenant at the relevant time. Because that earlier finding was not challenged, it became binding. The Court affirmed that the Consolidation Authorities could not ignore the High Court's conclusive verdict on the petitioner's status. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the orders that had erroneously recognized the petitioner's tenancy claim.
- Can a subordinate tribunal or authority disregard a finding of fact conclusively determined by the High Court in a previous round of litigation?
- Does a remand order by the High Court allow a lower tribunal to re-adjudicate a question of fact that was already decided against a party in the same proceedings?
- Does the change of ownership in consolidation proceedings affect the existing tenancy status of a person on the land?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 1-10-1986 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition filed by respondent No. 1, was allowed against the petitioner and the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities regarding possession of the petitioner over disputed land (under consolidation) were set aside as without lawful authority.
2. It is admitted that the land in question was brought under consolidation through a Scheme sanctioned on 10-3-1972. It is also admitted by the learned counsel that under the relevant provisions of the law of consolidation of land holdings, the tenancy of a person as on the date of the sanction of the Scheme would remain in tact and the change of ownership in consolidation proceedings would not make any difference in so far as his character as tenant is concerned. The petitioner claimed that he was tenant under one Karim Bakhsh over the land in question on the said relevant date. His claim was accepted by the Consolidation Authorities. The final order of a learned Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation) passed in petitioner's favour was challenged in the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction by the respondent side who had in the meanwhile purchased the land in question from the previous owner. The High Court in its detailed judgment, dated 16-5-1983 had come to the conclusion that there was misreading and non-consideration of the relevant record and it was held that the petitioner was not the tenant under Karim Bakhsh on any parcel of land in dispute. The case was remanded to the learned Member Board of Revenue for fresh decision in accordance with law. It was again decided in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 again filed a Constitutional petition which having been decided against the petitioner's claim, he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although it has been held in the impugned judgment that the remand order has not been followed by the learned Member Board of Revenue, in fact the High Court had itself allowed that forum to render fresh decision on facts after consideration of the record. Therefore, the learned Member Board of Revenue was at liberty to give a decision contrary to the findings of the High Court.
4. We do not agree with the learned counsel. After reading the previous judgment of the High Court we are satisfied that the main question as to whether the petitioner was the tenant on the land in dispute under Karim Bakhsh was concluded by rendering a decision against him. The said judgment was not challenged any further, therefore, it became conclusive against the petitioner. In the impugned judgment also the learned Judge in the High Court has interpreted his own previous judgment as follows:---- "This Court had already given a verdict that the respondent did not enjoy the status of a tenant when the Scheme was confirmed. The case was sent back to the learned Member Board of Revenue for fresh decision in accordance with the principle that in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction this Court is loath to substitute its decision for the order of the Tribunals below. In the impugned order the learned Member Board of Revenue accepts the position that at the relevant time, the respondent was not recorded as a tenant under the petitioner's procedecessor-in- interest i.e. Karim Bakhsh."
5. When confronted with the aforementioned situation, the learned counsel vas unable to press the petition for leave to Appeal any further. The same is accordingly dismissed.