Ch. NASRULLAH KHAN vs MEMBER CONSOLIDATION (JUDICIAL-II), BOARD OF REVENUE and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, regarding a consolidation of holdings scheme. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the Revenue Authorities' decision to refuse a wholesale reconsolidation of a village scheme that had been confirmed thirteen years prior. The Supreme Court held that the Revenue Authorities' determination, which opted to rectify specific defects through existing appeal and revision processes rather than reopening the entire scheme, was sound. The Court affirmed that determinations of Revenue Authorities in consolidation matters should not be interfered with by superior courts unless they are found to be perverse. The principle laid down is that where a consolidation scheme has been in operation for a significant period, the judiciary will exercise restraint and defer to the expertise of Revenue Authorities, provided their approach to resolving disputes through statutory appeal mechanisms is not arbitrary or perverse.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the findings of Revenue Authorities regarding the consolidation of holdings unless the findings are perverse?
- Can a consolidation scheme confirmed many years prior be set aside in favor of wholesale reconsolidation when defects can be remedied through individual appeals and revisions?
- Section 10(3), Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960
ORDER
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.-Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 16-7-2001 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed Writ Petition No,11686 of 2001 filed by the petitioner maintaining the earlier determination of the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
2. The brief facts are that consolidation operation of village Langey, Tehsil and District, Gujrat, was confirmed on 30-6-1990 under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The parties were certainly dissatisfied with the outcome of the consolidation, as such the matter ultimately came before the learned Member, Board ofRevenue Punjab, who through his order dated 6-1-2001 after considering the reports submitted by the subordinate authorities, came to the conclusion that there was no justification to put the whole village again for reconsolidation.
According to him, the defects as reflected from the reports were such that they could be rectified through appeals and revisions. Taking into consideration all the aspects of the case he directed the Consolidation Authorities to resolve the disputes and cure the defects, if any, through appeals and revisions which were filed subsequent to the order passed by him on 6-12=1997. It is pertinent to mention over here that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, while passing the order dated 6-1- 2001 also took note of the time passed between the confirmation of consolidation and his order passed on 6-1-2001, as such he even gave a direction for the condonation of delay in filing of appeal, if any. This order was assailed by the petitioners before the Lahore High Court, which has been upheld by a learned Single Judge through the impugned order while dismissing the above writ petition. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material placed on record with their assistance. As noted above in the hierarchy of the revenue forums the matter has been scanned threadbare. They have come to a conclusion that the defects floating in the consolidation scheme, which was confirmed 13 years earlier, could be remedied through appeals and revisions. This Court has already held in many cases that the determinations of the Revenue Authorities cannot be interfered in such like matters unless and until the same are perverse. Reference in this regard is made to the cases of Falak Sher and others v.
Sharif and others 1989 SCM R 1096; Muhammad Khan and 2 others v. Muhammad and 6 others 1989 SCM R 1714 and Allah Rehman and others v. Amtul Qayyum and another 1989 SCM R 1817.
' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and .