MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD and 6 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition concerning a consolidation of holdings matter. The dispute originated from a modification made by a Member of the Board of Revenue to an order previously passed by an Additional Commissioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the order issued by the Member, Board of Revenue, was passed without jurisdiction or was otherwise illegal, and whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the merits. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court noted that the counsel admitted the order was neither without jurisdiction nor illegal. The petitioner's argument regarding the alleged disregard for consolidation principles and the deprivation of property possession was found to be a matter of fact and merit, which the High Court had already adequately addressed. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that it found no justification to interfere with the High Court's findings of fact. Leave to appeal was refused, affirming that the Supreme Court will not re-examine findings of fact properly decided by lower forums.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact made by the High Court in a consolidation of holdings matter?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner concedes that the impugned order is neither illegal nor without jurisdiction?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This leave to appeal petition is directed against the dismissal, by the High Court, of petitioners' Writ Petition.
2. It had arisen out of the modification, by a learned Member, Board of Revenue, of an order passed by an Additional Commissioner. The case has arise out of a consolidation matter.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, with regard to the grievance made before the High Court, we asked him; whether, the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in this case is without jurisdiction, or in any way illegal. He answered in the negative. However, he further submitted that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has ignored the principles of Consolidation of Holdings by taking away the property which was in possession of the petitioners. This very question, which undoubtedly relates to the facts and merits of the case, having been raised before the High Court, was adequately and properly dealt with. No justification has been made out for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact.
4. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.