MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 2 others vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 7 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition by the High Court in a case concerning the consolidation of holdings. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in considering a report submitted by the Board of Revenue during the constitutional proceedings, which stated that the petitioners held land in excess of their entitlement, rather than restricting its review solely to the impugned orders. The Supreme Court held that no inconsistency existed between the impugned order and the official report, and concurred with the High Court that the petitioners failed to make out a case for the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that a court may consider official reports submitted by administrative authorities in constitutional petitions when evaluating discretionary relief in consolidation matters.
- Whether the High Court can take note of facts stated in a report submitted by the Board of Revenue in response to a constitutional petition?
- Does holding land in excess of entitlement preclude a petitioner from invoking discretionary writ jurisdiction in consolidation matters?
- Is there any inconsistency between an order of consolidation and a subsequent report confirming excess land possession?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.--Leave to appeal has been sought, against disimissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Writ Petition which had arisen out of a case of consolidation of holdings.
2. ' The petitioners' grievance in the High Court met with an assertion by the Board of Revenue in a report sent to the High Court in reply to the petitioners' constitutional petition; stating therein that the petitioners were even by that stage holding 2 kanals and 2 marlas in excess of their entitlement.
3. ' When confronted with this situation learned counsel tried to explain that the High Court should not have taken note of something which was found in a report to the High Court and not in the orders impugned before it.'
4. We having perused the report are of the view that there is no inconsistency between the order and the report. After hearing him on this aspect of reply we agree with the High Court that no case had been made out for exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.