NOSHER KHAN vs TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL JARANWALA and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a challenge by a Lambardar against the recovery of Government dues and the subsequent issuance of arrest warrants. The petitioner had previously failed in the High Court, which dismissed his writ petition on the grounds that he possessed an alternative remedy under the Land Revenue Act. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the amount demanded by the authorities was incorrect and not actually due. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether specific amounts are due constitutes a question of fact, which is properly within the jurisdiction of the relevant administrative authorities rather than the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Affirming the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner must pursue the alternative legal remedies available to him under the relevant statute. Consequently, the Court found no legal error in the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and refused leave to appeal, emphasizing that factual disputes regarding government dues should be resolved through established administrative channels.
- Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of fact regarding government dues?
- Is the existence of an alternative remedy under the Land Revenue Act a valid ground for dismissing a writ petition?
- Land Revenue Act 1967
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--A Lambardar having challenged the recovery of Government dues and consequential issuance of warrants of his arrest, failed in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
2. He has now sought leave to appeal.
3. The question whether any amount is due from the petitioner or not is one of fact. The observation of the High Court that the petitioner had other remedy under the Land Revenue Act has not been challenged.
4. Learned counsel, however, vehemently repeated the argument that the amount being demanded from the petitioner is not due. And that the amount due is less than the demanded one. This question is for the authorities concerned to examine. He even now can seek remedy in accordance with the observations made by the High Court. The dismissal of his writ petition does not suffer from any legal error. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.