MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 2 others vs Mst. ROSHI and 12 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a consolidation matter where the Lahore High Court refused to interfere with the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioners challenged the decision on two grounds: first, a factual dispute regarding the allocation of land, claiming they received deficient land compared to their entitlement; and second, a legal argument that the respondents, having benefited from a consent order, were estopped from challenging it. The Supreme Court held that since the factual controversy regarding land entitlement was not raised in the Review Petition before the Board of Revenue, the findings of fact made by the Board were sacrosanct and could not be reopened. Regarding the second ground, the Court clarified that while consolidation schemes are often prepared through consensual arrangements, such consent does not preclude landowners from challenging the scheme if it fails to meet statutory requirements regarding entitlement and land classification. Finding no merit in the contentions, the Court refused leave to appeal.
- Are findings of fact made by the Board of Revenue in consolidation proceedings considered sacrosanct if not challenged in a review petition?
- Does a consensual arrangement in a consolidation scheme prevent a landowner from challenging the scheme's compliance with statutory entitlement requirements?
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25-5-1992 whereby in a consolidation matter the High Court refused to interfere with the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue.
2. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly taken up two grounds--one factual and the other legal in support of this petition. The first is that both the High Court as well as the Member, Board of Revenue have wrongly assumed that the petitioners have received against their entitlement of 171 Kanals 5 Marlas of Class-I land, 174 Kanals 5 Marlas of land. This, according to the learned counsel, is incorrect. In fact the petitioners have received a deficient land as compared to their entitlement of Class-I land.
' Secondly, it is contended that the order which the respondents have successfully avoided was passed by way of consent and they have derived substantial benefit out of the same. In such a situation they should not have been permitted to challenge such an order.
3. We find that not even in the Review petition filed before the Member, Board of Revenue the factual controversy with regard to the exact entitlement of the petitioners and the deficiency in making allocation to them was ever pointed out or disputed. In the absence of such a ground in the Review Petition or elsewhere the High Court and this Court would be justified in considering this finding of fact of the Board of Revenue sacrosanct.
4. In consolidation proceedings the distribution of land and the scheme of consolidation is ordinarily required to be prepared by sort of consensual arrangement by the affected land- owners, That by itself does not bind them in a manner to disentitle them from challenging a scheme with regard to their entitlement and the category of land being offered to them so as to satisfy the requirement bf the law of consolidation.
5. No merit is found in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Nazar Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs, etc vs M.B.R., etc 2021 PLJ Lahore 451