Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM vs Syed IZHAR AHMED TIRMIZI and 3 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed her constitutional petition regarding the classification and allotment of a specific parcel of land. The core legal dispute concerns whether the subject property, Khasra No. 2175, should have been classified as agricultural land or urban immovable property, which directly impacted the validity of the allotment made to the petitioner versus the subsequent transfer to respondent No. 1. The petitioner contended that the land was agricultural, supported by revenue records, and that the authorities misread the evidence by treating it as urban property. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the contention that the lower forums and the High Court failed to properly consider the revenue records and evidence presented by the petitioner, specifically regarding the land's status as agricultural. The key principle established is that the failure of judicial or quasi-judicial forums to consider relevant documentary evidence, such as revenue records, constitutes a misreading of evidence, warranting appellate intervention to ensure that factual determinations are based on a comprehensive review of the record.
- Does the failure of a court to consider relevant revenue records constitute a misreading of evidence?
- Can a property classified as agricultural land be validly disposed of as urban immovable property without proper evidentiary support?
- Is the Supreme Court empowered to grant leave to appeal when lower forums have failed to consider material evidence on record?
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the Constitution petition filed by her was dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to property bearing Khasra No, 2175 situate Chah Anguriwala, Mouza Taraf Ismail measuring 1 Kanal 17 Marlas. According to the petitioner this land was treated as agricultural land and was allotted to her on 18-3-1965 in lieu of verified claim. It was recorded as Chahi Nehri in Jamabandi 1943-44 and 1948-49 and onward up to 1960. In order to show her possession she had stated that one Allah Ditta was cultivating the land as tenant and thereafter the Municipal Committee, Multan took it on lease and was paying rent to the petitioner in respect of 14 Marlas of land. It seems that on 16-2-1965 PTO was issued in respect of an area measuring 415 square yards out of the land allotted to the petitioner in favour of respondent No, 1 treating it to be urban immovable property. The petitioner filed appeal and revision before the Settlement Authorities, which were dismissed and finally she filed Constitution petition which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel has contended that the disposal of the property as urban property in 1963 in favour of respondent No, 1 and the observation that the petitioner had failed to produce any record or copy of special Jamabandi to support that the land was agricultural land or that it was treated as an A agricultural land is a result of misreading of evidence on record. The learned counsel has referred to the petition filed in the High Court and also to Annexures A and B2 to demonstrate that the copies of required revenue records including Jamabandi were annexed with the petition. The learned counsel contended that the evidence produced on record has not been considered. Leave is granted.