1989 SCMR 1163

GHULAM RASOOL vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1989 SCMR 1163

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 49 of 1985

Date1989-02-25

Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah

Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah

ResultLeave refused

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arose from a writ petition challenging consolidation of land holdings proceedings. The petitioner contested the validity of a statement recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which allegedly bore his thumb-mark, surrendering four Kanals and ten Marlas of land. The core legal and factual question was whether the petitioner had indeed made and thumb-marked the statement surrendering the land. The High Court had assessed that the statement was genuinely made by the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, finding no reason to differ with the factual assessment of the High Court, held that no justification was made out for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of fact regarding the voluntary surrender of land in consolidation proceedings will not be lightly disturbed.

Questions settled in this judgment

Whether a concurrent finding of fact regarding the voluntary surrender of land in consolidation proceedings can be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of justification?
Whether a statement recorded and thumb-marked before an Assistant Consolidation Officer is binding on the party making it?

consolidation of landwrit petitionleave to appealsurrender of landfinding of fact

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a writ petition which had arisen out of the proceedings for consolidation of land holdings.

2. ' The only question on which the success or otherwise of the petitioner depends is one of fact, namely; whether, the petitioner had surrendered the land in question--4 Kanals 10 Marlas, through a -statement recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and was also alleged to have been thumb-marked by him.

3. After hearing the learned counsel on the afore noticed question we see no reason to differ with the assessm ent by the High Court that such a statement A was made by the petitioner. That being so no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same is refused.