Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 261 of 1979, decided on 10th March, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 10‑10‑1978 in Writ Petition No. 2995 of 1977).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Consolidation of land‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑High Court, in writ jurisdiction, setting aside order of remand passed by Board of Revenue in consolidation proceedings‑‑Question involved in order of Board of Revenue was one of fact which had been answered in same order of Board and it was passed after making reference to record seen by Member, Board of Revenue himself‑‑High Court merely relying on a photo copy, one of which was allegedly uncertified‑‑Writ jurisdiction, held, was not properly exercised by High Court‑‑Petition converted into appeal and appeal allowed and order of High Court set aside and that of Members Board of Revenue remanding case restored.
Allah Wasaya Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Abdus Sattar Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 10th March, 1986.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 10‑10‑1978 of the Lahore High Court; whereby an order of remand passed by a learned Member, Board of Revenue in a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings was set aside in writ jurisdiction the result was that the order of Additional Commissioner (C) was restored.
2. The main question involved was whether the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing at relevant stages and was party to an order passed on 15‑7‑1971 by the Collector. The learned Member, Board of Revenue while remanding the case made the following observations in this behalf:‑
"The record shows that after A.C.O's order of confirmation of consolidation scheme on 30‑5‑1970 some amendments were made by the Collector (Cons.) in the scheme of the parties vide his order dated 15‑7‑1971. The order of the Collector (Cons.), dated 15‑7‑1971 shows that the petitioner was not a party before him. As such this order of Collector (Cons.) is bad in law and is accordingly set aside. The impugned order dated 10‑5‑1975 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Sargodha is also set aside. The case is remanded to the Collector (Cons.), Sargodha for fresh decision after hearing the parties."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the aforequoted observations. In answer, however, the learned counsel for the caveator relied on a copy of the very short order dated 15‑7‑1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, states that it is not a genuine order passed on 15‑7‑1971 to which he has drawn our attention. It is a lengthy and detailed order. There is no mention of the petitioner having participated in the proceedings dated 15‑7‑1971. It is pertinent to note that the aforequoted part of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue indicates that the said observations were made after examining the record of the case and in that regard the order dated 15‑7‑1971 was noticed wherein the petitioner was not shown as a party.
4. After hearing both the learned counsel at some length on the controversy involved we converted the petition into appeal, heard and, proceed to dispose of the same as such.
5. In the circumstances narrated above the question involved in the order of the Member, Board of Revenue is one of fact which has been answered in the same order (impugned before the High Court). It: was passed after making reference to the record seen by the Member. Board of Revenue himself. The High Court relied merely on photo copies, one of which, it is stated, was uncertified. Be that as it may, the writ jurisdiction has not been properly exercised in this case so as to set aside the remand order and that too on a question of fact. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated; 3‑5‑1978 with a direction, with the agreement of the parties, that on' remand, the question of participation of the petitioner in the proceedings of 15‑7‑1971 may also be gone into. There shall be no order as to costs.
M.Y.H. Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer