FATEH MUHAMMAD vs DILAWAR KHAN and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-6-1985, which set aside an order of the Board of Revenue allotting an Ihata in a Colony District to the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the legality of allotting an Ihata to the petitioner without conducting a proper inquiry and affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent, Dilawar Khan, who was already in possession of the said property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declared the Board of Revenue's allotment order to be without lawful authority due to the misreading and ignoring of relevant record, as the respondent's possession had never been duly proved to be unauthorised. The court established the principle that possession cannot be brushed aside as unauthorised without formal inquiry, notice, and a definitive finding, whilst clarifying that aggrieved parties may approach competent authorities if specific disqualifications or multiple allotments are subsequently alleged.
- Whether an allotment of an Ihata can be made without issuing notice and holding an inquiry into the status of an existing occupant?
- Does misreading and ignoring the relevant record by a revenue authority render its order without lawful authority?
- Can a person's possession be deemed unauthorised without a formal finding by a competent authority?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner who has been unsuccessful in the High Court in securing the allotment of Ihata in a Colony District, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 4-6-1985.
2. ' Dilawar, respondent, was shown as in occupation of Ihata No,18. Without an inquiry and notice to him his possession was held to be unauthorised and Ihata was allotted to the Petitioner on 13-5- 1966. The Board of Revenue in the hierarchy maintained that allotment order. The order of the Board of Revenue was declared to be without lawful authority on the ground that there was misreading of the record and an element of ignoring the relevant record.
3. ' Mr. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that Dilawar was in possession of more than one Ihata. His possession appeared to be unauthorised.
4. The petitioner was rightly allotted this Ihata as he had none other to fall back upon though he was the Lambardar of the village.
5. From the record it appears that Dilawar had been longer in possession of Ihata. His possession was at no stage recorded to be unauthorised nor proved to be so. There is no finding by any authority that Dilawar was in possession of more than one Ihata.
6. ' In the circumstances, the High Court's order suffered from no infirmity and the leave to appeal is refused. However, if the petitioner feels that Dilawar has either forteited the right to remain the allottee of that Ihata or is possessed of more Ihata than one, this decision will not preclude the petitioner from agitating the matter before the competent authority.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ZAFAR Versus YOUSAF ALI 2003 CLC 1922