ALLAH RASI vs MEMBER (CONS.), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 6
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, in a consolidation of holdings case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the improvement of land made by a party during the pendency of consolidation proceedings creates a vested right or entitlement that overrides the legitimate claims of other parties to the land in dispute. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue was neither unlawful nor without jurisdiction. The Court held that the mere fact that a petitioner has improved the land after consolidation proceedings have commenced does not deprive the respondents of their legitimate entitlement to the land in dispute. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's reasoning and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the finality of the revenue authority's decision regarding the land allocation.
- Does the improvement of land by a party during the pendency of consolidation proceedings entitle that party to retain the land against the legitimate entitlement of others?
- Is an order passed by a Member, Board of Revenue in a consolidation matter subject to interference if it is neither unlawful nor without jurisdiction?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The dismissal of petitioner's Writ Petition by the High Court has led to this leave petition. The order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue in a consolidation matter, was mainly challenged on the ground that improvement of the land by the petitioner during the pendency of the case, had not been taken into consideration.
2. The learned Judge in the High Court observed, that the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue was neither unlawful nor without jurisdiction; and that "the mere fact that the petitioner has improved the land after consolidation shall not deprive the respondents of the legitimate entitlement to the land in dispute".
3. The approach of the High Court is unexceptionable. The learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that it suffers from any infirmity legal or otherwise. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.