MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding consolidation proceedings. The core legal question concerns whether a private partition of joint land among co-sharers creates a binding right to specific possession during consolidation, and whether questions of fact can be interfered with in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a private partition and the entitlement to retain specific possession of joint property are purely questions of fact that do not warrant interference by the apex court. The key principle laid down is that pure questions of fact settled concurrently by lower forums and revenue authorities will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in leave to appeal proceedings.
- Whether the existence of a private partition among co-sharers is a question of fact?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land consolidation proceedings?
- Are purchasers of land through a private partition entitled to keep joint property in their possession during consolidation?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal of their Constitutional Petition No,3762 of 1988, by the Lahore High Court, vide impugned order.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner had purchased some land measuring 90 kanals 3 marlas comprising 1/3rd share of Khewat No,12 and 1/11th share of Khewat No,13, from Maqbul Ahmad etc. Vide Mutation No,44, attested on 30-3-1978. The vendors were co-sharers in the land with one Mst. Feroze Saleem, got their share separated through a private partition deed, dated 20- 4-76 and a report to this effect was made in the `Roznamcha' at S.No,1404, dated 11-5-76.
3. ' The consolidation proceedings in the Mauza were initiated and a scheme was formulated which was duly confirmed on 28-9-1978 in which the petitioners were given due share according to their entitlement in respect of their shares in the aforesaid Khatas and the possession was also delivered to them. An appeal against the said confirmation of consolidation scheme was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) Lahore, which was dismissed on 20-11-1979.
4. Further appeal before the Addl. Commissioner was also dismissed on technical grounds vide order, dated 30-6-1980. A revision petition before the M.B.R. Also met with the same fate.
5. ' These orders were challenged in a writ petition before the High Court, Which was also dismissed vide order, dated 8-10-1988.
6. The question of fact is involved in this case, whether there was any private partition and whether the petitioners in the circumstances were entitled to keep the joint property in their possession. This is essentially a question of fact which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, this petition has no force and is dismissed. Leave refused.