1987 PLP 229 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 1‑10‑1986 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition filed by respondent No. 1, was allowed against the petitioner and the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities regarding possession of the petitioner over disputed land (under consolidation) were set aside as without lawful authority. It is admitted that the land in question was brought under consolidation through a Scheme sanctioned on 10‑3‑1972. It is also admitted by the learned counsel that under the relevant provisions of the law of consolidation of land holdings, the tenancy of a person as on the date of the sanction of the Scheme would remain in tact and the change of ownership in consolidation proceedings would not make any difference in so far as his character as tenant is concerned. The petitioner claimed that he was tenant under one Karim Bakhsh over the land in question on the said relevant date. His claim was accepted by the Consolidation Authorities. The final order of a learned Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation) passed in petitioner's favour was challenged in the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction by the respondent side who had in the meanwhile purchased the land in question from the previous owner. The High Court in its detailed judgment, dated 16‑5‑1983 had come to the conclusion that there was misreading and non‑consideration of the relevant record and it was held that the petitioner was not the tenant under Karim Bakhsh on any parcel of land in dispute. The case was remanded to the learned Member Board of Revenue for fresh decision in accordance with law. It was again decided in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 again filed a Constitutional petition which having been decided against the petitioner's claim, he has now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although it has been held in the impugned judgment that the remand order has not been followed by the learned Member Board of Revenue, in fact the High Court had itself allowed that forum to render fresh decision on facts after consideration of the record. Therefore, the learned Member Board of Revenue was at liberty to give a decision contrary to the findings of the High Court. We do not agree with the learned counsel. After reading the previous judgment of the High Court we are satisfied that the main question as to whether the petitioner was the tenant on the land in dispute under Karim Bakhsh was concluded by rendering a decision against him. The said judgment was not challenged any further, therefore, it became conclusive against the petitioner. In the impugned judgment also the learned Judge in the High Court has interpreted his own previous judgment as follows:‑

"This Court had already given a verdict that the respondent did not enjoy the status of a tenant when the Scheme was confirmed. The case was sent back to the learned Member Board of Revenue for fresh decision in accordance with the principle that in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction this Court is loath to substitute its decision for the order of the Tribunals below. In the impugned order the learned Member Board of Revenue accepts the position that at the relevant time, the respondent was not recorded as a tenant under the petitioner's procedecessor‑in‑interest i.e. Karim Bakhsh." When confronted with the aforementioned situation, the learned counsel vas unable to press the petition for leave to Appeal any further. The same is accordingly dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.