YARA and others vs AHMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge concurrent findings of lower courts regarding a declaration suit concerning land ownership following consolidation proceedings. The core legal question is whether the consolidation authorities were justified in allocating a specific portion of land measuring 10 marlas to the respondent based on prior joint possession and residential structures. The Supreme Court held that the consolidation authorities acted with good justification in allocating the area to the respondent to protect existing residential houses following a flood, and that the lower forums committed no infirmity in dismissing the petitioners' claims. The Court established the principle that orders of consolidation authorities made with valid justification regarding pre-existing joint holdings and residential structures will not be interfered with in appellate review.
- Whether consolidation authorities are justified in allocating land to a party based on pre-existing residential structures?
- Can a declaration suit for adverse possession succeed against a co-sharer in joint holdings without establishing statutory requirements?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding consolidation proceedings absent legal infirmity?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Consequent upon consolidation proceedings in the village, an area measuring 10 marlas out of Killa No,11 of Square No,26, measuring in all 10 kanals and 4 marlas, was allocated to the respondent. The petitioners who are related to the respondent, filed a suit for a declaration that they were owners of the entire Killa in their own right as well as through adverse possession. The learned trial Court decreed the suit with regard to the Killa in question but excluded from the declaration the area of 10 marlas which had been given by the consolidation authorities to the respondent. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge but it was dismissed. They then filed a revision petition in the High Court but that too failed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed by the petitioners that prior to consolidation their holding was joint with the respondent and that the respondent had a share in the Killa in dispute (see statement of Yara, petitioner, before the trial Court at page 48 of the paperbook). A part of the Killa was being used for residential purposes. The reason why the consolidation authorities gave 10 marlas out of the Killa in question to the respondent was found by the Additional District Judge to be as follows:-- "It is,admitted by the parties that due to the flood which fell in the year 1973 both the parties left their houses and sought a shelter from the flood area as the disputed property fell under the flood.
Ahmad D.W.2 has admitted that the parties were in possession of the disputed property jointly before the consolidation proceedings which indicated that the respondent/defendant had his houses on the disputed property prior to the consolidation proceedings. This is why the respondent/defendant was sided by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation, to the effect that he should not be deprived of his houses constructed by him on the disputed property."
There was thus a good justification with the consolidation officer for the allocation of the area in question to the respondent. We see no reason to disturb the order of the consolidation authorities which does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed.