Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI and others vs MEMBER, (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUF, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition regarding a consolidation scheme dispute in village Mundranwala, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. The consolidation scheme was originally confirmed in 1966, following which the petitioners litigated alleging a reduction in their entitlement. Their revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, was dismissed because the scheme had been confirmed pursuant to their written consent given on 29 October 1966. The High Court subsequently dismissed their writ petition, noting that the petitioners actually obtained more area in class III land than their previous holding and that no reduction occurred when calculated by land classification. The Supreme Court addressed whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding land entitlement and written consent warranted interference. Holding that the findings of fact called for no interference, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that concurrent factual determinations regarding land classification and consent in consolidation proceedings shall not be disturbed by the apex court.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding land entitlement in consolidation proceedings can be interfered with?
- Does a consolidation scheme confirmed pursuant to written consent bind the parties?
- Whether obtaining more area in class III land negates claims of reduction in entitlement?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13 January, 1987 whereby writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' The dispute pertains to consolidation a holding of village Mundranwala Tehsil Daska District Sialkot. The consolidation scheme was confirmed in 1966 but the petitioners litigated the matter on the ground that their entitlement was reduced. They went up to the Member, Board of Revenue but their revision was dismissed for the reason that the scheme was confirmed pursuant to the consent in writing given by the petitioners on 29 October, 1966. After having lost in the Revenue Courts the petitioners filed writ petition which was also dismissed for the reason that counsel for the petitioners was unable to controvert the fact that they had obtained more area in class III land than their previous holding and also that there was no reduction if the calculation was made by classification of land. These findings of fact call for no interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.