BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 4 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition against the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities. The petitioners were granted State land under the Bara Scheme in 1956 for eight years, subject to the condition that they bring at least 80 percent of the land under cultivation to become eligible for proprietary rights in half of the holding. The petitioners failed to cultivate the requisite percentage of land within the lease period and subsequent extensions granted by the Collector, leading to the resumption of the land by the State, which was subsequently allotted to a private respondent. The core legal question was whether the revenue authorities were justified in resuming the land based on the extent of cultivation. The Supreme Court held that since concurrent findings of fact established that the petitioners cultivated only between 17.69 percent and 30 percent of the land and thus failed to fulfill the mandatory condition, no interference was warranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual determinations regarding non-fulfillment of lease conditions do not justify judicial intervention.
- Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition where concurrent findings of fact regarding non-fulfillment of lease conditions are established against the petitioners?
- Does failure to bring the requisite percentage of State land under cultivation within the stipulated lease period legally warrant the resumption of the land by the State?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual determinations made by revenue authorities regarding the extent of land cultivation?
ORDER
' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 7 March, 1983, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were granted State land under Bara Scheme for a period of 8 years in 1956 on the terms that if they brought under cultivation atleast 80% of the said land, they could apply for the grant of proprietary rights to the extent of half of the lease holding, the other half to be surrendered to the State. Within the period of tenancy the petitioners failed to bring the requisite area under cultivation. However the period of lease was extended by the Collector but the petitioners again failed to achieve the target. As a result the Collector resumed the land holding that the petitioners were not eligible to retain the land or to the grant of proprietary rights.
These orders were upheld in appeal as swell as in revision. The writ petition whereby these orders were challenged had also been dismissed. Hence the present petition. In the meantime after resumption the land was allotted to respondent No, 5 (Muzaffar Mehdi) and even the proprietary rights had been granted to him. It was submitted by learned counsel that according to the Revenue record it was not correct that the petitioner had not brought under cultivation the requisite area and that therefore the Revenue Authorities were not justified in resuming the land.
However the finding of fact is that the petitioners at the most brought 30% of the land under cultivation although according to the report of the land Reclamation Officer the cultivation was only of 17.69%. Thus they did not fulfil the condition of cultivation of 80% of the land. Since the question of fact has been decided against the petitioners no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.