JANAT BIBI and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the legal representatives of a State land allottee against the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition, which challenged the resumption of the allotted land. The core legal questions involve whether the conditions for land cultivation and crop requirements under the relevant scheme were fulfilled, and whether the subordinate authorities and the High Court misread the relevant material, specifically the crop inspection register entries. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding non-cultivation and non-compliance with crop requirements were properly examined by the High Court and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court concluded that the controversy stood resolved by these factual findings against the petitioners and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding the violation of land allotment conditions, supported by revenue records such as crop inspection registers, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless tainted by material misreading or legal infirmity.
- Whether the High Court's findings on the misreading of crop inspection register entries can be interfered with when based on concurrent factual determinations?
- Does failure to cultivate the prescribed percentage of State land within the stipulated time justify the resumption of the land?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the resumption of State land when the controversy stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the legal representatives of an allottee of State land against the dismissal by the High Court of their writ petition filed against the resumption of the land.
2. ' The two main reasons for the resumption were: (a) non-cultivation of the land upto the prescribed percentage of area within the prescribed time; (b) non-cultivation of the prescribed food crops.
3. ' It is not denied that the relevant scheme did lay down the requisite conditions. Learned counsel, however, has raised some technical contentions and the main contention is that the conditions were satisfied and further that the orders impugned before the High Court were based on misreading of relevant material.
4. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we do not agree with him that the question of misreading before the High Court was not properly dealt with in the impugned judgment. Not only this, the relevant crop inspection register entry was also examined by the High Court and the same was found against the petitioners' contention. The controversy it is clear, now stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioners, which do not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.