FATEH SHER and others vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE (Cons.) and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a consolidation matter where land-owners challenged the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners can resile from a concession made before the Additional Commissioner regarding the exchange of land plots containing their built-up property, based on alleged unfulfilled conditions. The Supreme Court held that interference with the impugned judgment is unjustified as the decision is founded on a clear admission made by the petitioners' counsel, and the purported conditions now raised were neither agitated below nor formed part of the record. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot subsequently reopen a concluded matter or challenge an adverse finding that is based on a binding concession and acquiescence before a competent forum.
- Can a party challenge an order or reopen a consolidation dispute after making a clear concession before the lower authority?
- Whether reliance on a legal concession can be invalidated by conditions that were not agitated or established during the prior proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by some land-owners against the dismissal by the High Court of their writ petition which had arisen out of a consolidation matter.
2. ' The dispute now left to be resolved, revolves around the piece of land, which falls within the plot No, 55; wherein, according to the petitioners, their built up property including houses, is situate.
3. ' The learned Judge in the High Court made the following observations in this behalf: "The next point raised is that as the petitioners had their pucca-houses in killa No, 8 of rectangle No, 55, the same could not be taken away. It is to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioners in the argument on 11th July, 1981, before the Additional Commissioner, conceded that rectangle No, 55 may be taken away from them and they may be given rectangle No,
56. The Additional Commissioner also observed that the allotment of rectangle No, 55 in favour of respondents had to be maintained in view of a previous order of the Board of Revenue. Admittedly, the petitioners did not challenge that order further and so acquiesced in that part also. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel cannot be heard at this stage to say that the whole thing should be reopened. It may further be noted that there is no mention of any pucca-houses in the arguments of the learned counsel, in the order of the learned Additional Commissioner."
4. After hearing the learned counsel who, while being unable to deny the correctness of the facts stated in the afore-quoted observations, contended that the concession made from the petitioners' side was conditional. And as the petitioners have been put to loss without the satisfaction of the relevant conditions, the reliance on their concession or admission was not justified.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we have not been able to find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment as it is based on the admission made from the petitioners' side and the so called conditions now made the basis for the arguments before us, were not then agitated.
6. Accordingly, it is not a fit case for leave to appeal. The same is refused.