MUHAMMAD JALAL KHAN And 3 Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue in a consolidation matter. The core legal question concerned whether a party who allegedly agreed to the initial consolidation scheme possessed the right to challenge it subsequently in an appeal, and whether delay could be condoned in such proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Board of Revenue had properly dealt with the question of the challenge after admitting additional evidence, and the High Court had rightly applied its mind to the merits, finding the impugned orders unexceptionable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the validity of the revisional orders and the condonation of delay by the revenue authorities.
- Whether a party who agreed to the initial scheme of consolidation has the right to challenge the same in appeal?
- Can the Board of Revenue condone delay and make adjustments in fields during consolidation proceedings?
- Are orders passed by the Board of Revenue in consolidation matters open to interference when the High Court has found them unexceptionable on merits?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.---In a consolidation matter appeal of respondent No.3 having been dismissed as time-barred his revision was allowed by condoning the delay and some adjustments were made in the fields by consolidation. The petitioners challenged the revisional order before Board of Revenue but without any success. Their writ petition was also dismissed, therefore, they have now sought leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel has contended that the respondent No.3 having agreed to the initial scheme of consolidation had no right to challenge the same in appeal. This question was properly dealt with by the Board of Revenue after admitting additional evidence. High Court has also applied its mind to the merits of the case and has rightly held the orders impugned before it as unexceptionable.
3. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.