SIRAJ DIN and others vs SIRAJ DIN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by landowners challenging the dismissal of their Constitutional petition by the High Court regarding a land consolidation dispute. The core legal questions presented were whether the petitioners' entitlement to land was improperly reduced, whether the area surrounding their tube-well was unfairly diminished, and whether the High Court erred in its determination regarding the choice of land allocation. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the new arguments concerning the reduction of land and tube-well area, noting these points were not raised before the High Court. Regarding the choice of land, the Court held that such matters fall within the realm of findings of fact and the propriety of judgment, rather than jurisdictional error. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity or lack of lawful authority in the impugned order. The petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that the Supreme Court will not permit the introduction of new questions of fact in a petition for leave to appeal that were not urged before the High Court.
- Can a petitioner raise new questions of fact in a petition for leave to appeal that were not argued before the High Court?
- Does a dispute regarding the choice of land allocation in consolidation proceedings constitute a question of law or a finding of fact?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order passed by the High Court in a constitutional petition regarding land consolidation?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Some land owners have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their Constitutional petition which had arisen out of a case regarding consolidation.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners repeated the same argument which was advanced at the time of hearing before the High Court; and, an additional ground that the entitlement of the petitioners has been reduced and further that the area near their tube-well has also been reduced.
3. None of these points was urged before the High Court. In these circumstances, we do not consider it necessary to permit the learned counsel to raise these questions of fact now before us.
4. In regard to the question of choice of land urged before the High Court, the same also falls within the realm of the findings of fact and at best propriety or sense of judgment. The order impugned before the High Court thus cannot be held to be without lawful authority nor the order suffers from any legal or other infirmity.
5. ' This petition, accordingly is dismissed.