Mst. WAZIR BEGUM and others vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF
This matter involves two civil petitions for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over an excess area of land equivalent to 484 units, originally allotted in excess of entitlement to Jamal Din and subsequently sold to Saif Ullah and then to Abdul Aziz and others. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of Intra-Court Appeals against an order passed by a single judge in writ petitions arising from proceedings under Act XIV of 1975. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the Intra-Court Appeals on the ground of maintainability was unsustainable in law because no appeal, revision, or review is provided under the said Act against orders passed by revenue authorities under Section 3(1)(b). Consequently, the Court converted the petitions into appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court bench, and remanded the cases for disposal in accordance with law, laying down that an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable when the original statutory order lacks departmental remedies of appeal, revision, or review.
- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against an order passed in a writ petition arising from proceedings under Act XIV of 1975 where no appeal, revision, or review is provided under the statute?
- Can revenue authorities sell excess land under Section 3(1)(b) of Act XIV of 1975 without departmental appellate remedies being available under the Act?
- Section 3(1)(b), Act XIV of 1975
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.-- We propose to dispose of above-mentioned two civil petitions for leave to appeal by a consolidated order as the points of law and facts involved in these cases are common.
2. - The dispute in the above petitions relates to an excess area of land, equivalent to 484 units. This excess area of land was taken away from the allotment of one Jamal Din on a mukhbari application filed by one Farooq son of Asghar A.I as it was found that this area was allotted to Jamal Din in excess of his entitlement. This excess area of land, before it could be cancelled from the allotment of Jamal Din, was sold by Jamal Din to one Saif Ullah on 11.6.1965. The Settlement Commissioner Lands cancelled the excess area of land from the allotment of Jamal Din by order dated 7.6.1969. The order cancelling the excess area from the allotment of Jamal Din was challenged by the purchaser, Saif Ullah, as well as by the petitioners in two separate writ petitions being No. 1071-R of 1979 and 144-R of 1985. During pendency of the above writ petitions, Saif Ullah sold the land which he had purchased from Jamal Din to Abdul Aziz and others. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by a consolidated order dated 18.11.1985. While dismissing the above writ petitions, the High Court observed that it was open to the petitioners to approach the revenue authorities for purchase of the land on basis of their possession over it in accordance with the provisions of Act XIV of 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act.). In view of the order passed in writ petitions, the petitioners as well as respondents filed applications before the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner to purchase the disputed land under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act. The revenue authorities sold the land to Abdul Aziz, respondent herein. The petitioners challenged the order passed by the revenue authorities under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Act allowing sale of disputed land to Abdul Aziz, through two separate writ petitions being Nos. 242-R and 243-R of 1986. It appears that Abdul Aziz also filed writ petition challenging order of revenue authorities transferring the land to him but his only grievance in the writ petition was that the rate charged in respect of the land was not in accordance with the market value of the land. All the three writ petitions namely, two writ petitions filed by the present petitioners and one by Abdul Aziz were disposed of by a consolidated order by the High Court and the case was remanded to the revenue authorities. After remand of the case, the revenue authorities held the petitioner entitled to purchase the land at the rate of Rs. 100 per unit while respondents were held disentitled to purchase the said land. The respondents challenged the order of revenue authorities in Writ Petition No. 164-R of 1991 which was accepted. The petitioner filed ICAs Nos. 321 and 322 of 1994 against the order of learned single Judge which have been dismissed on the ground that the ICAs were not maintainable as the original order passed in the case was appealable under the law. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the dismissal of ICAs on the ground that it was not maintainable, cannot be sustained in law.
3. It is an admitted position that the parties had approached the revenue authorities for purchase of the land under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act which was found in excess of the entitlement of Jamal Din as this it vested in the Provincial Government. Against the order passed by the revenue authorities under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, no appeal, revision or review is provided under the Act.
In these circumstances, the dismissal of ICA on the ground that it is not maintainable, cannot be upheld. We, accordingly, covert these petitions into appeals, set aside the order of learned ICAs bench and remand the cases to the High Court with the direction that ICAs be disposed of in accordance with law. The appeals stand disposed of in light of the observation made above.