MUHAMMAD KHAWAJA vs BAHADUR And 25 Other
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding a consolidation of holdings dispute. The petitioner had initially failed before the Board of Revenue, which had restored the Collector's order dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The High Court had upheld this dismissal, citing both merits and the issue of limitation. Before the Supreme Court, the primary legal question concerned the limitation period and whether the High Court should have interfered with the discretionary findings of the lower revenue forums. The Supreme Court held that the determination of limitation in this context fell within the discretionary jurisdiction of the lower forums. Consequently, the Court ruled that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with this discretionary exercise. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, refusing leave to appeal on the grounds that the lower forums' discretion regarding limitation was properly exercised and unexceptionable. The petition was dismissed without reaching the merits of the case.
- Can the High Court interfere with a discretionary finding of a lower revenue forum regarding the condonation of delay?
- Is the determination of limitation in a consolidation of holdings case considered a discretionary matter for the lower forums?
- Should the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the High Court has refused to interfere with a discretionary order of a lower forum?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's Writ Petition which had arisen out of his failure in a consolidation of holdings case before a learned Member, Board of Revenue, in Second Revisional jurisdiction.
2. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by Collector as time-barred. His First Revision, however, was allowed after condonation of delay and also by making some adjustments in the land holdings of the respective parties. The learned Member, Board of Revenue allowed respondents' second revision and restored the order of the Collector; the petitioner's Writ Petition failed -- both on merits as well as on question of limitation.
3. We asked the learned counsel to first argue the question of limitation as the merits would have to be considered after the petitioner could cross the hurdle of limitation.
4. After hearing him on this point we are of the view that apart from the reasons advanced in the impugned judgment by the High Court for refusal to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue, vis-a-vis, the question of limitation, otherwise too that aspect of the matter in the circumstances of this case, fell within the discretionary field of the lower forums. There was no justification for the High Court for interference with this discretionary exercise in its own discretionary' jurisdiction. The impugned judgment, therefore, in this behalf is unexceptionable on this additional ground. Leave to appeal is hence, refused. There is no need for examination of the other merits of the case. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.