DILAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SHAH and 20 others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in a consolidation matter. The core legal question concerns whether the revenue authorities and the High Court erred in making adjustments under the Consolidation Scheme regarding the petitioner's land and orchard. The Supreme Court held that the petition is devoid of merit, affirming the findings that the petitioner was given land according to his entitlement, his Hissadari possession was duly protected during the partition of the joint Khata, and the orchard was not reflected in the revenue record. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities regarding land entitlements and consolidation schemes, when properly considered and found to be fair, will not be interfered with in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction.
- Whether concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding land consolidation can be interfered with when the landowner was given land according to entitlement?
- Does the absence of an orchard in the revenue record affect its consideration during land consolidation adjustments?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18th May 1986 whereby writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' It is a consolidation matter. Under the Consolidation Scheme certain adjustments were made in the village where the petitioner is one of the landowners by Assistant Consolidation Officer in 1977.
3. In 1978 appeals were preferred and the Collector made further modifications in the Khatas of the parties. Subsequently the petitioner and other land-owners filed revision petitions but these were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. Thereafter the revision of the petitioner met the same fate before the Member, Board of Revenue. The orders of the Revenue Authorities were challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition which has been dismissed. Hence the present petition.
4. ' It was submitted by the learned counsel that there was orchard on the land of the petitioner and the land was of good quality, but it has wrongfully been given to the other owners. This aspect of the case has been properly attended to by the learned Judge of the High Court. The orchard finds no mention in the Revenue Record. The findings of the Member Board of Revenue are that the petitioner had not been unfairly treated. He was given land according to his entitlement and in fact in excess of his entitlement. His Hissadari possession was kept in view at the time when the joint Khata was partitioned. The petitioner was heard at the stage of appeal although his appeal was time-barred and the delay was condoned.
5. ' In the light of the above discussion it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
6. Leave to .