MUMTAZ ALI and another vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-11-1988, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition upholding the concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding the allotment of a shop site. The core legal question concerns whether unauthorized possessors or transferees of an abandoned commercial site hold a superior legal right to allotment over a duly vetted applicant, and whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue tribunals warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the choice of a suitable tenant rests with the competent authority, that agriculturists ineligible for shop allotments acquire no rights through unauthorized possession, and that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized possession of commercial land confers no preferential right of allotment, and factual determinations concurrently resolved by lower forums remain protected against constitutional interference.
- Does unauthorized possession of a disputed commercial site confer any legal right to seek its allotment?
- Can concurrent findings of fact rendered by lower revenue courts be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Are agriculturists eligible to seek the allotment of a shop site meant for commercial business?
ORDER
' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal in this petition.Is sought by the petitioners against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-11-1988, whereby their Constitutional petition against the findings of the respondents Nos: 1 to 3 dated 29-10-1986, 27-5-1986 and 10-11-1980, respectively, was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
' The dispute between the parties relates to the allotment of a shop site, situate in Chak No,2/1-AL, Tehsil and District Okara which was allotted to one Ibrahim. The said Ibrahim cancelled this site being not interested in running the shop business. Respondent Abdul Jabbar applied on 11-2-1980 for the allotment of the said area of the shop to respondent No, 3 who after obtaining reports from the revenue officials allotted the same to Abdul Jabbar respondent No, 4, vide order dated 10-11- 1980. The petitioners challenged the said order in appeal before respondent No, 2, which failed vide order dated 27-5-1986. The revision petition of the petitioners before the respondent No, 1 also dismissed vide order dated 29-10-1986. They filed Constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A learned Single Judge of the High Court after detailed scrutiny held that the choice of the suitable tenant is to be made by the competent authority, the petitioners being agriculturists were ineligible to seek allotment of the shop site. The fact that they are in unauthorized possession, fails to furnish them any right to seek allotment. The learned Single Judge vide his order dated 15- 11-1988 dismissed the writ petition.
' The learned counsel for the petitioners before us contended that there was an Ahata measuring 8 marlas meant for allotment to shopkeepers for running shops and business over there. The same was allotted to one Muhammad Ibrahim, who instead of constructing the shop on it, transferred the same to the petitioners for some cash consideration. Although the petitioners were in possession the said area was wrongly allotted to respondent No,
4. Now the question involved in this petition, whether the petitioners are in possession of the disputed Ahata, is a question of fact and not relating to the question of law which A has already been adjudicated upon by the learned Courts below in their concurrent findings, after proper consideration of all material on record, which was rightly not interfered in the writ petition by the learned High Court. We, therefore, find no force in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.