MASOOD ABBAS BUKHARI 2 Others vs THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision and a writ petition arising out of a suit for perpetual injunction. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court declining to interfere with concurrent findings of fact while noting that entitlement applications were pending before the competent revenue authority. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its lawful discretion by allowing the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue to decide the parties' entitlement strictly according to law, and further observed that the Supreme Court is not bound to interfere with equitable discretionary decisions where no substantial question of law of general public importance arises. The key principle laid down is that the apex court will not interfere with just and proper discretionary High Court orders regarding pending revenue matters unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary refusal to disturb concurrent findings of fact when revenue matters are pending?
- Does a petition against concurrent judgments dismissing a suit for perpetual injunction warrant interference in the absence of a substantial question of law of general public importance?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the High Court judgment, dated 1-3-1998 dismissing Civil Revision No, 1338-D of 1991 and Writ Petition No, 10140 of 1992 arising out of Appellate Court judgment confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the private respondents against respondent No,1 and the petitioner.
By the impugned judgment, High Court has neither up-set nor disturbed the findings of fact recorded by two Courts below with regard to the rights and interests of the parties in respect of the suit-land. On the face of record, it transpires that applications with regard to entitlement of the parties are pending before the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, which have been ordered to be disposed of strictly according to law, on the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel contended that the course adopted by the learned Judge in Chambers is contrary to law but we find no merit and substance in this submission, as the High Court, in the exercise of its discretion and for enabling the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue to decide the fate of entitlement of the parties to the suit-land, neither acted illegally nor arbitrarily. Assuming for the sake of argument that the judgment was not lawful, this Court is not bound to interfere with the exercise of discretion in such decisions, which are otherwise just, proper and equitable. No substantial question of law of general public importance appears to arise in these petitions, which are devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.