YASEEN vs KHAN MUHAMMAD And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption dispute involving competing claims over a parcel of land. The petitioner filed a pre-emption suit based on co-sharership, while the respondent filed a separate suit based on tenancy in a revenue forum. The respondent obtained a consent decree in the revenue hierarchy, which was upheld through the Board of Revenue. The petitioner did not challenge this revenue decree in the High Court via writ jurisdiction. Subsequently, the civil court granted the petitioner a pre-emption decree, but conditioned it upon the respondent's prior revenue decree. The petitioner challenged this condition through appeal and revision, which were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the civil court, or the High Court in revision, could set aside a final decree passed by a revenue forum when that decree was not independently challenged. The Supreme Court held that the revenue decree remained binding as it was not challenged in appropriate proceedings. Consequently, the condition attached to the petitioner's decree was lawful, and the petition was dismissed, affirming that collateral challenges to final revenue decrees in civil proceedings are impermissible.
- Can a civil court or High Court in revision set aside a final decree passed by a revenue forum if that decree was not independently challenged?
- Is a condition in a pre-emption decree making it subject to a prior revenue decree lawful when the revenue decree remains unchallenged?
- Does a failure to challenge a revenue decree in writ jurisdiction preclude a party from attacking it in subsequent civil proceedings?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 20-12-1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Civil Revision arising out of the dismissal of his pre- emption suit, was dismissed. The petitioner had filed a suit for pre-emption regarding sale of a parcel of land on the ground of co-sharership. The respondent No.2 claiming to be a tenant also filed a suit for pre-emption. The petitioner's suit was pending before the civil Court while that of the said respondent was before the revenue forum. The respondent initially impleaded the petitioner but ultimately having compromised the matter with the vendee, obtained a consent decree in the revenue forum on the finding that he was entitled to it on ground of being a tenant on the land in dispute. That decree was challenged by the petitioner up to the Board of Revenue, but without any success. He did not challenge the said decree any further in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. In his own suit a decree for pre-emption was passed on the condition that it would be subject to the decree passed in favour of the said respondent No.2 in the revenue hierarchy. The petitioner challenged this condition in appeal and revision. On meeting failure he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. Although respondent No.2 the decree-holder from the revenue forum, has been impleaded as a respondent, the decree passed in his favour was not challenged in the High Court by an independent proceedings whereby the judgment and decree passed up to the Board of Revenue could have been set aside. Neither the civil Court nor the District Court and the High Court in the proceedings arising out of civil suit filed by the petitioner, could set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent No.2 in the revenue hierarchy. In that context those judgments and decrees are not before this Court because they could not be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of a Civil Revision arising out of the pre-emption suit. That being so, the decree passed in favour of the said respondent cannot be set aside in these proceedings, therefore, the condition attached to the decree passed in favour of the petitioner was lawful and proper. No justification has been made out for interference. This petition accordingly, is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM RASUL and others vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and anothers 2001 SCMR 1761