BASHIR AHMAD and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in a consolidation case. The core legal question was whether the High Court should have interfered in the Board of Revenue's decision to restore an earlier order of the Collector dated 29-10-1978, despite the petitioners' contention that the original order was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the order of 29-10-1978 had attained finality, as the proceedings regarding that order had concluded in 1982 without further challenge by the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in declining to interfere with the Board of Revenue's decision. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction, will not grant relief against orders that have already attained finality, particularly when the underlying proceedings have long concluded without timely challenge by the aggrieved parties.
- Can the High Court exercise its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an order that has already attained finality?
- Does the failure to challenge an order in a timely manner preclude a party from later raising a plea of limitation in subsequent proceedings?
- Is it appropriate for the High Court to interfere with a Board of Revenue decision that restores a previously finalized order?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal by the High Court of their Writ Petition, which had arisen out of a consolidation case. The petitioners had challenged the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, before the High Court on the ground that the learned Member should not have restored the order of the Collector dated 29-10-1978 which itself was illegal on account of bar of limitation.
2. ' After the sanction of the consolidation scheme, an appeal was accepted and certain amendments were made on 29-10-1978. Both the parties had challenged this order before the Additional Commissioner. On revision, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored the appellate order, dated 29-10-1978 by an order, dated 21-12-1981. This order was not challenged by the petitioners any further. The Additional Commissioner again took up the matter in revisional jurisdiction and passed an order, dated 12-1- 1982. This order was again challenged before the Board of Revenue and a learned Member, by an order, dated 16-2-1983 impugned before the High Court, observed and held as follows-- "As would appear the dispute between the parties over the same land has already been finally decided by my order, dated 21-12-1981 passed in R.O.R. Nos.90/1979-80, etc. Whereby the order of the Collector (Cons), dated 29-10-1978, making certain amendments in the Khatas of the parties, was restored as between the parties. That order will also hold good in the present case.
3. Consequently the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), dated 12-1-1981 is reversed and that of the Collector (Cons), dated 29-10-1978, amending the Khatas of the parties, is restored as between them."
4. ' In view of the above resume of the facts and circumstances, the plea of bar of limitation against the order, dated 29-10-1978 could hardly be raised or given any importance by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Even if the said order suffered from any such defect, as is pointed out by the learned counsel, the proceedings in that behalf, having ended, in December, 1982, they had attained finality. Be that as it may, the petitioners could not have been A granted any relief in its discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court on the ground advanced by the learned counsel. That being so, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal and the same is refused.