Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 622/M of 1977, decided on 17th December,1985.

---S. 161--Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of--Competency of Additional Commissioner to entertain appeal--Additional Commissioner (Revenue), held, was competent to entertain appeal against order passed by Collector Fn-appeal, against mutation of inheritance.

----Art. 199--West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 161- Findings of fact--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Findings of fact arrived at by appellate Court below by applying conscious mind, without flouting provisions of relevant law and based on sound and cogent reasons, held, would not suffer from illegality and lawful authority--Such findings of fact could not be investigated by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

Ch. Azeem-ud-Din for Petitioners.

Ch. Bashir Ahmad Khan for Respondent No.2.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Settlement Department.

Date of hearing: 17th December, 1985.

Through this constitutional petition Ali Khan and 2 others want this Court to declare the order, dated 26-12-1970 of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The fact giving rise to this petition briefly are that Roop Singh, the original owner of the disputed land, was husband of Mst. Maghan Bibi respondent No.3, and paternal-uncle of Bashir respondent No.2. He died in the year 1953. The mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 15-4-1968. Mst. Maghan Bibi got one-fourth and Bashir got 3/4th of the property. All Khan petitioner filed appeal before the Collector wherein he .asserted that his wife Mst. Bhurian being sister of Roop Singh was also entitled to a share in the property left behind by him. The appeal was accepted on 19-8-1968. Feeling aggrieved of this order, Bashir challenged it before the Additional Commissioner who accepted the appeal on 24-12-1970, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the order of the Collector and that the finding of the Additional Commissioner that Bhurian was not the sister of Roop Singh, was factually incorrect. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that since the order dated 19-9-1968 was passed by the Collector, therefore, the Additional Commissioner, (Revenue) was quite competent to entertain appeal against that order. The question whether Mst. Bhurian was the sister of Roop Singh or not, is a question of fact. The learned Additional Commissioner has applied his conscious mind to the facts and circumstances and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by him. The contention raised by the learned counsel also requires investigation which cannot be done by this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction. The learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.) has not flouted the provisions of relevant law. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority.

For what has been said above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, the petition is 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.