NOOR KHAN vs A.C., DEPALPUR and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his constitutional petition regarding the resumption and adjustment of excess land allotted to him. The core legal question was whether the authorities were legally bound to first restore the entire land inclusive of the excess to the petitioner before making necessary reductions and adjustments. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's insistence on restoring the entire land first was untenable as it would create an unwarranted entitlement, and found that the previous judgment of the Court had been duly implemented by giving the petitioner the necessary choice regarding the excess area. The key principle laid down is that questions of fact settled concurrently by lower forums, in the absence of any substantial question of law, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether an informer is entitled to the prior restoration of excess land before adjustments are made?
- Does a concurrent finding of fact by lower forums warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no question of law arises?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 19th of April, 1983 whereby his appeal was dismissed maintaining thereby the dismissal of the Constitutional petition.
2. ' The petitioner as an informer succeeded in the first round and got allotments of the surrendered area. His own allotments were thereafter found in excess to the extent of 725 P.I. Units. It was resumed from him in October, 1966. He challenged it and succeeded to the extent that a choice was to be afforded to him in the matter of surrendering the excess. In giving effect to the order of this Court with regard to the choice, proceedings took place in March, 1983 and the adjustments earlier made were re-affirmed.
3. ' The petitioner's argument throughout has been that the entire land inclusive of the excess should be first restored in its entirety to him and thereafter necessary reduction should be made. Any adjustment made without restoring that allotment to him is, according to him, not tenable in law.
4. It is true that the petitioner is entitled to receive in full to the extent of his entitlement. If he has not received to the extent of his entitlement, he should make that grievance before the appropriate authority. The position taken by the petitioner that first the entire land inclusive of the excess should be restored to him and then a reduction should he ordered would only create an entitlement for him, right from 1966 to the present date for which he has no claim. All the authorities have held that he had been given the necessary choice and the judgment of this Court has been implemented.
5. This is also the finding of the High Court to this effect.
6. ' As the question of fact stands concluded, and no question of law arises, leave to appeal is refused.