NAZIR AHMAD KHAN vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BORAD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the recovery of a penalty imposed for illicit cultivation of resumed Government land under the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioner to discretionary relief regarding the quantum of penalty. The Supreme Court held that since the amount being recovered was admittedly not commensurate with the benefit obtained by the petitioner, discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction as well as leave to appeal should be denied. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking discretionary equitable relief must demonstrate clean hands and entitlement thereto, and disproportionate benefits or lack of merit disentitles them to interference from superior courts.
- Is a petitioner entitled to discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction when the penalty amount is not commensurate with the benefit obtained?
- Can leave to appeal be refused by the Supreme Court on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief?
- Colonization of Government Lands Act
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought by the grandson of an ex- allottee of Government land under a scheme framed under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, against the dismissal of his writ petition.
2. The land in question was resumed in 1977. That aspect is no more in dispute. The Collector imposed penalty at the rate of 40 times of the land revenue for illicit cultivation. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. A learned Member, Board of Revenue, reduced the penalty from 40 times of the land revenue to 20 times. The petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the order for recovery having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. It is not denied that the amount being recovered is not commensurate with the benefit obtained.
4. That being so, the High Court should have dismissed this appeal on the sole ground that the petitioner was not entitled to discretionary relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. For the same reason, he is not entitled to discretionary relief of grant of leave to appeal by this Court. The same is accordingly refused.