GHULAM NABI and others vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, regarding the correction of Khasra Girdawari and pre-emption rights. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its exercise of writ jurisdiction and whether the findings of fact regarding the cultivating possession of the disputed Khasra numbers, as determined by the revenue authorities, were sustainable. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, found that the revenue authorities had correctly identified the respondents as the tenants in possession for the relevant agricultural periods (Kharif 1974 and Rabi 1975) based on the Jamabandi records. The Court held that since the petitioners' names did not appear in the relevant records and the findings of fact were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact by revenue tribunals, when based on record, are generally not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction.
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding cultivating possession made by revenue authorities?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, where the findings are based on a proper appreciation of the record?
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8-8-2001 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,8738 of 1993 filed by the present petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly stated facts of the case are that the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners Sardar filed a suit for possession through preemption against the respondents claiming superior right of pre- emption against the vendees. He also filed a petition for correction of Khasra Girdawari in his favour in respect of the disputed Khasra Numbers. The respondents contested the suit and out of divergent pleadings of the parties issues were framed. After recording evidence of the parties, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Wazirabad, through his judgment dated 1-6-1982, decreed the suit in respect of the entire land. However, decree was passed only to the extent of 32 Kanals of land and the land which was underneath the Nullah was left out as the same was stated to have been acquired. The respondents filed an appeal assailing the aforesaid judgment, which was partly allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, on 20-5-1985. The Appellate Court modified the decree of the trial Court to the extent of claim of the petitioners in respect of Khasra Nos.16 and 24 while to the extent of Khasra Nos.12, 13 and 76 it was set aside as the land was stated to be not in their cultivating possession. The petitioners challenged the above order before the Board of Revenue by filing a revision petition, which was dismissed by a learned Member through his order dated 20-7-1993. The petitioners then challenged the above orders of the Additional Commissioner as well as Member, Board of Revenue, before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by means of Writ Petition No,8738 of 1993. They also filed' Writ Petition No,8740 of 1993 whereby their plea qua the correction of Khasra Girdawari was dismissed through an order dated 20-7-1993 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
3. ' A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, after discussing the merits of the case dismissed both the writ petitions as being not maintainable. The petitioners have sought leave to appeal whereby their Writ Petition No,8738 of 1993 was dismissed.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has committed an error in not exercising jurisdiction vested in him as according to him, a writ petition is maintainable against an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dismissing a revision petition in the circumstances.
5. ' We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the facts of the entire case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Since we have gone through the entire documents placed on record of the case, as such we are deliberately avoiding to enter into the question of non-exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court after discussing the entire facts. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy us that how the name of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest could be read in Khasra Nos.12, 13 and 76.
7. On the contrary, name of Muhammad Hussain admittedly has been recorded. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, after examining the entire record had stated as to the cultivation of the disputed Khasra Nos. As under during the relevant period i.e, Kharif 1974 and Rabi 1975:-- Khasra Number 12 ' In this Khasra Number the petitioner Sardar only figured as tenant. Up to Rabi 1974 it was recorded as {{URDU TEXT}}. In Kharif 1974 Muhammad Hussain is recorded as tenant, and this continued in Rabi 1975.
8. Khasra Number 13 ' In this Khasra Number again up to Rabi 1974 the entry is "{{URDU TEXT}}". In Kharif 1974 and Rabi 1975, Muhammad Hussain again is recorded as tenant.
9. Khasra Number 76 ' In this Khasra Number from the Jamabandi of 1972-73 onwards Muhammad Hussain is recorded as tenant, inclusive of Kharif 1974 and Rabi 1975."
10. The names of the petitioners figured nowhere in these Khasra Numbers, as such this question of fact has been determined by the Courts below after proper appreciation of record and we do not find any justification to interfere with the same.
11. ' Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed and leave declined.