SULTAN AHMAD vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And 2 Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts regarding the entitlement to additional water sanctioned by canal authorities. The core legal question is whether the additional water sanctioned on the application of the petitioner was intended exclusively for his land or for both brothers, and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction based on the assumption of joint landholding. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the existence of a private partition based on the revenue record and the limits of revisional jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner, noting that the High Court's assumption regarding the joint nature of the land warranted a formal review of the matter.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of subordinate courts in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does additional water sanctioned by canal authorities on an individual' accrue to jointly held land or solely to the applicant?
- Whether a private partition established through revenue records affects the distribution of sanctioned canal water?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The main parties in this petition for special leave to appeal are two real brothers. The sole question for consideration in this petition is whether the additional water sanctioned by the canal authorities on the application of the petitioner was intended for his land alone or that both brothers were entitled to its use. The trial Court as well as the learned District Judge held that the additional water was meant only for the petitioner. The High Court reversed this finding on the assumption that the land held by the two brothers was joint and for that reason the petitioner could not alone claim the benefit of the additional water. In support of this petition it is contended that the assumption upon which the High Court based its judgment in revisional jurisdiction was erroneous as a private partition had already taken place between the two brothers.
2. In support of this contention reliance is being placed on the revenue record. It is also contended that in revisional jurisdiction it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Courts. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted to the petitioner. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/-. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.