MIAN MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM BAQAR
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision application and maintained the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether a non-proprietor can successfully challenge the sale of a share in joint village shamalat land made by a member of the proprietary body to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the vendor was a member of the proprietary body who sold only his legitimate share in the shamalat land, and the petitioner did not belong to the proprietary body, the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the validity of the acquisition were unexceptionable and free from misreading or non-consideration of evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the concurrent findings upholding the respondent's acquired rights.
- Whether a non-proprietor can challenge the sale of a share in shamalat land made by a member of the proprietary body?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when there is no misreading of evidence?
- Whether the purchase of a specific share in shamalat land by a respondent from a valid member of the proprietary body confers lawful rights?
ORDER
1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 28-4-1993 whereby Civil Revision Application No,357 of 1990, filed by the petitioner against the two concurrent judgments was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was maintained.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before us only these contentions which were raised before the learned Judge in Chamber and which were repelled after taking due note of them in the light of the evidence produced in the case. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not belong to the proprietary body of the village which is the joint owners of the 'Shamalat'. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Zafar Iqbal, who had sold his char in 'Shamalat' was one of the member of proprietary body of 'Shamalat' and that the sale effected by said Zafar Iqbal in favour of the respondent was only to the extent of his share in the 'Shamala' land. All the three Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent had acquired the right in the 'Shamalat' to the extent of the share of Zafar Iqbal through purchase of the same and there is neither any misreading of evidence by the Courts below nor lack of consideration of any material evidence on record. No case for interference with the orders of High Court is made out. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.