MUHAMMAD DIN AMANULLAH SAIFULLAH vs REVENUE, PUNJAB and another
This matter arises from petitions directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petitions. The petitioners were allotted land under a Consolidation Scheme confirmed on 20-6-1990 against land purchased through a registered sale-deed. The Consolidation Officer allotted land in excess of the petitioners' entitlement on account of Beshi at the expense of respondent No. 5, Abdul Qadir. Respondent No. 5 successfully appealed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), resulting in the withdrawal of the excess land and its allotment to respondent No. 5. Subsequent appeals and revisions by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were dismissed. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were lawfully entitled to the excess land allotted to them as Beshi. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to land in excess of their entitlement and that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower forums suffered from no illegality. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether an allottee is legally entitled to retain land allotted in excess of their entitlement under a Consolidation Scheme?
- Does the failure of a party to object initially at the sanctioning of a consolidation scheme bar them from filing an appeal against an unlawful excess allotment?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned petitions as the same arise out of a common judgment, involving similar question of law and fact.
2. These petitions are directed against common judgment of Lahore High Court whereby Constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. Petitioners were given land in Consolidation Scheme confirmed on 20-6-1990 against land purchased by them measuring 264 Kanals, 11 Marlas through registered sale-deed, dated 17-11-1974 in equal shares. Consolidation Officer, while sanctioning the scheme, at the cost of Abdul Qadir-respondent No,5, allotted the land in excess of the entitlement of the petitioners on account of Beshi to which they were not entitled.
3. Abdul Qadir-respondent No,5 feeling aggrieved filed an appeal against the said Consolidation Scheme before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), which was accepted through order, dated 21-11-1992 and land measuring 27 Kanals, 12 Marlas, allotted to the petitioners in excess of their entitlement on account of Beshi was withdrawn from them and given to Abdul Qadir- respondent No,5 as he had been allotted land less than his entitlement.
4. Petitioners filed separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) against this order, which were dismissed on 21-4-1993, against which revision petitions filed before the Board of Revenue also failed on 6-10-1999. Constitutional petitions challenging dismissal orders filed by them have been dismissed through the impugned judgment against which leave is sought.
5. Before the High Court it appears that stress of the petitioners mainly was to the effect that at the time of sanction of the scheme Abdul Qadir respondent No,5 did not raise any objection, rather agreed to the allotment of excess land in favour of the petitioners.
6. This ground was found to be meritless. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that the petitioners were entitled to any land in excess of their entitlement on account of Beshi and finding of fact recorded by all the Courts below suffer from any illegality.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit, in these petitions, which are hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.