MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a writ petition against a decision by the Member, Board of Revenue. The underlying dispute concerned a consolidation scheme sanctioned in 1972, which was later set aside by an Additional Commissioner exercising suo motu revisional powers due to alleged errors. The Member, Board of Revenue, subsequently set aside the Additional Commissioner's order, reasoning that revising a scheme after ten years, during which right holders had settled, was unjustified. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the Member's order affected numerous right holders without notice, that the proceedings were improperly initiated under the Land Revenue Act rather than the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, and that the order was conjectural. The Supreme Court held that since these specific grounds were not raised before the High Court, no case for interference was established. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's refusal to interfere with the administrative decision regarding the long-settled consolidation scheme.
- Can a petitioner raise new grounds in a petition for leave to appeal that were not argued before the High Court?
- Is a consolidation scheme subject to revision after a significant lapse of time where right holders have already settled?
- Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960
- Land Revenue Act
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IOBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 2nd June, 1982 Whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the consolidation scheme for the area was sanctioned in 1972. However, certain objections were raised when the Member Board of Revenue toured the area in 1978. When under the orders of the Board of Revenue an inquiry was conducted it was found out that certain errors had taken place in the scheme which required a suo motu revision. Consequently the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu revisional powers set aside the earlier scheme and directed implementation of a fresh scheme. The order of the Additional Commissioner was challenged and the Member Board of Revenue set it aside on the ground that the circumstances did not justify the revision of the entire scheme after a case of ten years. It was against this order of the Member Board of Revenue (dated 24th January, 1982) that the 'petitioners filed writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the reason given by the Member Board of Revenue for setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner was justified because the consolidation scheme had been sanctioned ten years back whereunder the right holders had long been settled in their respective wandas. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the second revision decided by the Member Board of Revenue whereby the order of the Additional Commissioner was set aside had only involved 16 right holders but it was without notice to 641 right holders including the present petitioners who numbered 231. Thus, according to learned counsel the impugned order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue effected a large number of right holders. It was next submitted that instead of taking proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, in the instent case action was taken under the Land Revenue Act which was illegal. It was finally argued that the impugned order of the Member Board of Revenue was conjuctural and ultra vire the facts.
4. Consequently it was liable to be set aside. We have heard learned counsel at some length. None of these grounds had been raised before the High Court. In our view therefore no case is made out for interference in the impugned order of the High Court. As a result this petition is dismissed.