Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 671 of 1981, decided on 13th January, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1266 of 1981).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Finding of lower Court as to allotment order having been forged established on record‑Such view possible on record‑Dismissal of writ petition by High Court on ground of finding being recorded by a competent authority and given after due deliberation not liable to be interfered with, held, not open to exception.

Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court with Walayat Umar Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 11^th November, 1981.

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.

The main point, in this petition for

leave to appeal, directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 1266 of 1981 is whether the petitioners were holding the land in dispute under an allotment order which was not genuine. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, had, in his order dated 29‑1‑1981, held that it was established that the petitioners herein got the allotment dated 15‑3‑1961 forged under the signatures of the then S. D. O., Toba Tek Singh and manoeuvred to hold the land illegally and unauthorisedly. He, therefore, ordered the resumption of the land in dispute and its allotment in favour of the respondents, subject to entitlement. The petitioners challenged this order in the Lahore High Court at Lahore but a learned Single Judge held that the finding recorded by the Member, Board of Revenue was by an authority or competent jurisdiction given after due deliberation, that is to say after due consideration. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

2. As the learned Member, Board of Revenue had set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and the Collector we issued a notice to the respondents‑Authorities to produce the original record before us notice was also issued to respondent No. 2 and has learned counsel had‑also been heard.

3. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record we have come to the conclusion that the learned Member, Board of Revenue could come to the conclusion at which he had arrived at and such view take by him was a possible view, the same could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

4. This is not a fit case for interference.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.