LAL DIN vs MUHAMMAD ARIF and others
This appeal arose from a pre-emption claim initiated by a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, following the sale of land. The central dispute involved the correction of Khasra Girdawari entries, which had been altered to reflect the vendee as the tenant, thereby defeating the plaintiff's pre-emption suit. After the Board of Revenue remanded the case for reconsideration, the High Court upheld the Collector's authority to correct revenue entries despite pending litigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the implications of its earlier judgment in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the impugned judgments as the specific ground for appeal was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and was not available during the earlier proceedings. The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the legal questions raised, instead dismissing the appeal and directing the relevant statutory authority to consider the case on remand in light of the principles established in the Sardar Ali precedent.
- Does the pendency of a pre-emption suit legally prohibit a Collector from exercising statutory powers to correct Khasra Girdawari entries?
- Should the Supreme Court adjudicate on new grounds of appeal not raised before the lower forums or the High Court?
- Is it the appropriate role of the Supreme Court to enforce legal precedents in individual cases without first affording the statutory authorities an opportunity to apply them?
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted to the vendee in a pre-emption claim' under Land Reforms Regulation by a tenant, to examine the effect of the decision given in Sardar Ali v.
Muhammad Ali PLD 1988 SC 287.
2. A pre-emption suit was instituted by the tenant when land measuring 19 kanals 4 marlas was sold by its owners Mubarik Ali and Muhammad Shafi in favour of the petitioner on 19-2-1981. The Khasra Girdawari showed the plaintiff to be tenant but it was corrected under the orders of the Collector to show the vendee as its tenant. The suit of the plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on that account failed before the Collector and the Additional Commissioner. When the matter came before the Board of Revenue on 6-5-1985, the Collector on reconsideration restored the entries in the Khasra Girdawari showing the plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of the respondents to be tenant whereupon the Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Collector for reexamining the merits of the claim. By the Constitution Petition, what was challenged was that pending the suit the Khasra Girdawari should not have been corrected. The High Court held that there was no such stultification of the statutory power of the Collector simply because the litigation was going on. In this background leave to appeal was sought.
3. It is to be noted that leave to appeal was granted to consider an entirely new ground not available and not taken at any earlier stage. It cannot, therefore, be said that when the impugned judgment was passed by the High Court or by the Member, Board of Revenue, there was no lawful authority to do so or that the judgment suffered from any illegality or error. That being the case those judgments cannot be set aside. If subsequent events have frustrated the proceedings then appropriate course was to go before the Officer where the proceedings had gone and raise before him such questions of law and fact. It is for that authority to implement the orders and the law laid down by this Court and not for this Court to enforce it in each individual case without affording the Statutory Authorities an opportunity to do so.
4. Hence we dismiss this appeal without recording my finding on the specific questions on which leave to appeal was granted and leave it to the officer receiving the case on remand to examine the questions of law and fact arising in the case in view of judgment given in Sardar Ali's case PLD 1988 SC 287 and give effect to it. No order as to costs.