QARYAM vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Other
This matter concerns a challenge to the consolidation scheme in Mauza Wafardarpur, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, which was confirmed on March 27, 1980. Respondents filed an appeal against this scheme over two years later, which was accepted on merits by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector on December 3, 1984. Subsequent appeals and revisions by the petitioner were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, respectively. The petitioner contended that the lower authorities failed to properly address the issue of limitation in the initial appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the initial appellate authority had explicitly noted the limitation issue and proceeded to decide the matter on merits. Furthermore, the Board of Revenue had affirmed that the Collector was justified in condoning the delay. The Court held that since the authorities possessed the jurisdiction to condone the delay and had exercised their discretion to do so, there was no ground for judicial interference. The petition was consequently dismissed for lack of merit.
- Does an appellate authority have the jurisdiction to condone a delay in filing an appeal against a consolidation scheme?
- Can a court interfere with a discretionary order of a revenue authority that has condoned a delay in filing an appeal?
- Is an order disposing of an appeal on merits valid if the issue of limitation was noted but the delay was condoned?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J--The consolidation scheme in Mauza Wafardarpur Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh was confirmed on 27-3-1980. After two years five months and twelve days the respondents Nos.4 and 5 preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3 which was accepted and disposed of on merits by order, dated 3-12-1984. This order was challenged in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan on 27-6-1985 and a further revision of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 12-5-1986.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Multan had allowed the appeal of the contesting respondent without applying his mind on the question of limitation though this fact was specifically noted in the order.
Likewise, the point of limitation was ignored by the Additional Commissioner, Multan as well as Member Board of Revenue while passing the orders on petitioner's appeal and revision.
3. We have gone through the various orders passed in the case and find that in the very first order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, dated 3-12-1984 the point of limitation was duly noticed and the appeal was disposed of on merits. The order passed by the Board of Revenue, dated 12-5-1986 also mentions that the Collector was justified in condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal. The authorities concerned had jurisdiction to condone the delay and having done so no question of interference with such discretionary order arises at this stage. The petition has, therefore no merits and is dismissed accordingly.