MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 3 others vs Mst. GHULAM ZOHRA and 3 others
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, which had declined to interfere in a consolidation of holdings matter regarding the withdrawal of two khasras from their allotments. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction in land distribution matters arising from consolidation proceedings, and whether the Board of Revenue's decision upholding the lower authorities' orders was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the distribution of land is not a matter for the High Court to consider under writ jurisdiction and that the Board of Revenue had rightly applied its mind to the merits of the case. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere with the distribution of land in consolidation matters through writ jurisdiction, and concurrent findings on merits by revenue authorities will not be disturbed unless suffering from jurisdictional defects.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the distribution of land in consolidation matters under writ jurisdiction?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of revenue authorities in consolidation proceedings where no jurisdictional defect is shown?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The unsuccessful writ petitioners in a consolidation matter have sought leave to appeal; against the following order of dismissal of the writ petition:- "The petitioners are aggrieved by the withdrawal of two khasras from their allotments during the course of the consolidation of holdings. I am afraid the distribution of land is not a matter for the High Court to consider in writ jurisdiction. See Muhammad Hussain Monir v. Sikandar etc. (PLD 1974 SC 139), Ghulam Qadir v. M.B.R. (1970 SCMR 292) and Amir Din v. Muhammad Malik (1981 SCMR 804)."
2. Learned counsel has not disputed the reasoning of the High Court in so far as the merits are concerned. However, he has contended that there were two matters pending before the Board of Revenue. In an earlier round of litigation the respondents' petition was dismissed. But the matter was remanded on acceptance of petitioners' case. However the lower Consolidation Authorities did not give effect to the dismissal of the respondents' petition by the Board of Revenue. He further argued that this question was agitated before the Board of Revenue in the second round but a learned Member after taking due note of it did not accept the petitioners' revision.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel in support of the technical plea raised by him we are satisfied that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue applied mind to the merits of the case and came to definite conclusion that the orders impugned before him were unexceptionable. We have no reason to differ with this assessm ent on merits and the High Court's approach in refusing to grant relief to the petitioners in writ jurisdiction is also beyond question. That being so, there is no merit in this petition, leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.