Shamlat | The Supreme Court rejected the claim to name the Land on the basis of adverse possession and ordered to go to the Revenue Court.
**دعوی:**
درخواست گزاروں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ 332 کنال شملہ دہ (گاؤں والوں کی مشترکہ ملکیت) کی زمین کے مالک اور قبضے میں ہیں، جو کہ ان کے پیشروؤں کے وقت سے ہے۔ انہوں نے اس بنیاد پر دعویٰ کیا کہ ان کی ملکیت کے حق میں کچھ حصے داروں کی طرف سے دی گئی بیانات کو ریکارڈ میں شامل نہیں کیا گیا، جس کی وجہ سے زمین کے موجودہ ریکارڈ میں غلط اندراجات ہیں۔ انہوں نے عدالت سے درخواست کی کہ مدعا علیہان کو مداخلت سے روکا جائے اور Revenue Staff کو ہدایت دی جائے کہ ان کے نام پر زمین کو درست ریکارڈ میں درج کیا جائے۔
**جواب:**
مدعا علیہان نے دعویٰ کیا کہ:
1. شملہ دہ کی زمین مشترکہ ملکیت ہے، اور وہ بھی اس کے شریک مالک ہیں۔
2. درخواست گزاروں کا دعویٰ ناقابل قبول ہے کیونکہ وہ زمین کے واحد مالک ہونے کا دعویٰ نہیں کر سکتے۔
3. درخواست گزاروں نے کوئی قابل قبول ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا کہ ان کے پیشروؤں کے حق میں کوئی خاص بیانات دی گئی تھیں۔
4. شملہ دہ کی موجودہ جامابندی کے مطابق، مدعا علیہان کو مشترکہ ملکیت کے طور پر دکھایا گیا ہے۔
**فیصلہ:**
سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ:
1. شملہ دہ کی زمین ایک مشترکہ ملکیت ہے، اور درخواست گزاروں کا دعویٰ اس کے خلاف ہے۔
2. درخواست گزاروں نے صرف قبضے کی بنیاد پر مکمل ملکیت کا دعویٰ کیا ہے، جس کی قانونی حیثیت نہیں ہے۔
3. درخواست گزاروں کے دعوے میں کچھ مخصوص اور قابل قبول ثبوت کی کمی تھی، خاص طور پر وہ بیانات جن کی بنیاد پر ملکیت کا دعویٰ کیا گیا تھا۔
4. لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے قانونی اور حقائق کی غلطیوں کی بنیاد پر مقدمہ کو قبول کیا تھا۔
عدالت نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا اور کہا کہ درخواست گزاروں کو اپنے مسئلے کے حل کے لیے Revenue Forum سے رجوع کرنا چاہیے۔
**تمام عدالتوں کے فیصلے:**
1. **Trial Court (Civil Judge Khushab):**
**فیصلہ:** 18 اکتوبر 2003
**تفصیلات:** سول جج خوشاب نے درخواست گزاروں کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ شملہ دہ کی زمین مشترکہ ملکیت ہے اور درخواست گزاروں نے اس کے مکمل ملکیت کا دعویٰ ثابت نہیں کیا۔ عدالت نے اس بات کو بھی مدنظر رکھا کہ درخواست گزاروں کے دعویٰ کے لیے کوئی قابل قبول ثبوت موجود نہیں تھا۔
2. **Appellate Court (Additional District Judge Khushab):**
**فیصلہ:** 29 اکتوبر 2004
**تفصیلات:** اپیل کورٹ نے Trial Court کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا۔ اپیل کورٹ نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ درخواست گزاروں نے ابتدائی عدالت کے فیصلے میں موجود نقصانات اور غلطیوں کو درست کرنے کے لیے کوئی معقول وجوہات فراہم نہیں کیں۔
3. **Lahore High Court (Civil Revision No.773/2005):**
**فیصلہ:** 13 اکتوبر 2011
**تفصیلات:** لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے درخواست گزاروں کی تجدیدی درخواست منظور کرتے ہوئے ان کے دعوے کو درست قرار دیا اور مقدمہ کو دی گئی قانونی نظیر کے تحت تسلیم کیا۔ عدالت نے اس فیصلے میں Trial Court اور Appellate Court کے فیصلوں کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔
4. **Supreme Court of Pakistan:**
**فیصلہ:** 02 جولائی 2024
**تفصیلات:** سپریم کورٹ نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا اور اس مقدمے میں Trial Court اور Appellate Court کے فیصلے کو درست قرار دیا۔ سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ درخواست گزاروں کا دعویٰ ناقابل قبول ہے کیونکہ انہوں نے صرف قبضے کی بنیاد پر مکمل ملکیت کا دعویٰ کیا تھا اور ان کے دعوے کے حق میں کوئی قابل قبول ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا گیا۔ عدالت نے درخواست گزاروں کو Revenue Forum کے ذریعے اپنے مسائل کے حل کے لیے درخواست دینے کی آزادی دی۔
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
( Appellate Jurisdiction )
Present:
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, CJ
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan
Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
CIVIL APPEAL NO.477-L OF 2011
(0n appeal against the judgment dated 13.10.2011 passed by the
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.773 of 2005)
Zafar Iqbal and others
…
…
Petitioners
Versus
Muhammad Rafiq and others
…
…
Respondents
For the petitioners
:
Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din, ASC
For respondents (1-4)
:
Mr. Imran Muhammad Sarwar, ASC
(through video link from Lahore)
Date of hearing
:
02.07.2024
JUDGMENT
Naeem Akhtar Afghan, J. This judgment disposes of Civil
Appeal No.477-L of 2011.
2.
Relevant facts of the case are that previously, in the year
1984, the predecessors of the respondents filed civil suit
No.123/84 for Declaration and Injunction claiming ownership of
332 Kanal of Shamlat Deh (joint holding of the villagers) of Mouza
Khushab (the suit land) on the basis of adverse possession.
3.
The above suit was contested by the shareholders of the
Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khusahab with the contention that the
Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab, including the suit land, is a joint
holding and they are in possession of the same as co-sharers.
4.
The plaint of civil suit No.123/84 was rejected by Civil Judge
Khushab vide order dated 15 April 1992 under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) on the basis of judgment
passed by the Federal Shariat Court whereby claim of ownership
on the basis of adverse possession was declared repugnant to the
Injunctions of Islam.
CA.477-L/2011
2
5.
Subsequently, on 7 April 1992, the respondents (plaintiffs)
filed civil suit No.56/1992 against the petitioners and others (the
defendants) in respect of the suit land. The plaint was amended
on 15 July 2002. This suit was filed in representative capacity on
behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendants (shareholders of Shamlat
Deh of Mouza Khushab), being numerous in number, were also
sued in representative capacity.
As per list ‘B’ attached with the amended plaint, 1091
shareholders of Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab were arrayed as
defendants in the civil suit No.56/1992.
6.
As per contents of the amended plaint dated 15 July 2002, it
is the claim of the plaintiffs that they are owners and are in
possession of the suit land since the time of their predecessors.
The entries in the Register Haqdaran pertaining to the years 1945-
1946 in the name of the defendants are incorrect and same are
liable to be corrected.
The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction to
restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession and
from denying their ownership of the suit land.
Mandatory injunction was also sought by the plaintiffs for
issuing directions to the Collector, District Khushab (defendant
No.11) to instruct the Revenue Staff to enter the suit land in the
name of the plaintiffs as owners.
7.
It was further contended by the plaintiffs in the amended
plaint that partition proceedings of the suit land were
initiated/continued during the years 1938-1940. During those
proceedings, as per contents of Roznamcha dated 14 April 1938,
four shareholders namely Sardar Muhammad Amir Khan, Malik
Muhammad Khan Numberdar Pattinaij, Syed Muazzam Shah and
Ghulam Muhammad Numberdar (claimed by the plaintiffs to be
the predecessors of some defendants) had made the following
statemen
CA.477-L/2011
3
8.
As per contents of the amended plaint, on the basis of the
above statements of four shareholders, in his report dated 8 May
1938, the revenue officer made recommendations accordingly. In
pursuance of order dated 1 February 1940 passed by the Assistant
Collector Khushab, Mutation Nos.1494 and 1495 were also entered
in the name of the predecessors of plaintiffs (for the suit land) but
subsequently same were not approved and were cancelled as the
above named four shareholders alongwith other shareholders,
being army persons, were not available in the area due to World
War-II.
9.
The plaintiffs further contended that their predecessors
namely Sheikh Budha, Noor Din and others and after their death,
they continued in possession of the suit land as owners but due to
negligence of the revenue staff, entry of the suit land still exists in
the revenue record as Shamlat Deh (joint holding of the villagers).
10.
According to the plaintiffs, after the years 1945-1946 till
date, four years Jamabandi (
) of the suit land has not been
prepared periodically by the revenue staff and taking un-due
advantage of the same, the defendants are denying the ownership
of the plaintiffs for the suit land and they are bent upon to
interfere in the same.
11.
The above suit has been contested by the defendants by
filing separate written statements denying possession of the
plaintiffs over the suit land and denying the claim of ownership of
the plaintiffs for the suit land with the contention that the
plaintiffs have no locus standi to file declaratory suit claiming
exclusive ownership of the suit land which is a joint holding being
part and parcel of Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab, that Jamabandi
of the years 1989-90 for Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab has been
prepared by the revenue staff wherein the defendants have been
shown/entered as co-owners with possession,
that
the
predecessors of defendants did not make any statement in favour
of the predecessors of the plaintiffs for the suit land.
12.
After framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the
parties and after recording evidence of the parties, the suit filed by
the plaintiffs was dismissed by Civil Judge, Khushab (Trial Court)
vide judgment and decree dated 18 October 2003.
CA.477-L/2011
4
13.
The plaintiffs filed appeal which came up for hearing before
Additional District Judge, Khushab (Appellate Court). The appeal
was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree
dated 29 October 2004.
14.
The plaintiffs challenged the above judgments and decrees
by filing Civil Revision No.773/2005 before the Lahore High Court
which has been accepted vide judgment dated 13 October 2011
and the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed.
Feeling aggrieved of the above judgment passed by the
Lahore High Court in revisional jurisdiction, the defendants have
filed the instant appeal.
15.
While answering the query of the Court about
maintainability of the Declaratory Suit claiming exclusive
ownership of a particular piece of land in a joint holding i.e.
Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab, learned counsel for the plaintiffs
contended that due to their longstanding possession over the suit
land coupled with the statements made by four shareholders of
Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab in favour of their predecessors, the
plaintiffs are entitled to claim exclusive ownership of the suit land.
Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the
Declaratory Suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming exclusive ownership
of the suit land, being a joint holding, is not maintainable, that the
plaintiffs have failed to prove that the four shareholders had made
statements in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs for the
suit land, that as per revenue record the plaintiffs are non occupancy tenants of the suit land, that subject to proof of their
status as shareholders in the suit land, the plaintiffs can approach
the revenue forum subject to all just legal exceptions.
16.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length we
have perused the entire record with their able assistance. The suit
land being part and parcel of Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab is a
joint holding. According to the settled principles1, the vendee of a
co-sharer who owns an undivided Khata in common with others, is
clothed with the same rights as the vendor has in the property no
more and no less. If the vendor was in exclusive possession of a
1 Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf Khan (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.)9)
Atta Muhammad v. Manzoor Ahmad (1992 SCMR 138)
CA.477-L/2011
5
certain portion of the joint land and transfers its possession to his
vendee, so long as there is no partition between the co-sharers, the
vendee must be regard as stepping into the shoes of his transferor
qua his ownership rights in the joint property, to the extent of the
area purchased by him, provided that the area in question does
not exceed the share which the transferor owns in the whole
property.
17.
It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they are purchasers of
the suit land. The plaintiffs are claiming exclusive ownership of the
suit land primarily on the basis of their alleged possession without
specifying/explaining the nature/status of their alleged
possession.
The plaintiffs have further based their claim upon the
statements made by four shareholders on 14 April 1938 in favour
of their predecessors with regard to the suit land. Admittedly
statements in writing of those four shareholders are not available
on record. Neither the said four shareholders nor their successors
have ever affirmed those statements before any forum.
18.
In the Roznamcha dated 14 April 1938 (reproduced in para
7 supra) neither any reason nor any specification or measurement
of the area of Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab for its exclusion from
the partition has been mentioned.
19.
The above vague Roznamcha does not mention as to on what
basis the unspecified portion of Shamlat Deh of Mouza Khushab
has to be declared as ownership of Sheikh Budha, Noor Din and
others.
20.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs failed to explain as to how
merely on the basis of their alleged possession, the plaintiffs can
be declared as owners of the suit land.
21.
In view of all the above it is concluded that the Trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court have rightly dismissed the suit of the
plaintiffs by passing speaking and well-reasoned judgments. It is
further concluded that while decreeing the suit vide impugned
judgment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Lahore High
Court has erred in facts as well as in law.
For the above reasons the appeal is accepted. The impugned
judgment dated 13 October 2011 passed by Lahore High Court in
CA.477-L/2011
6
Civil Revision No.733/2005 is set aside. However, the plaintiffs are
held at liberty to approach the revenue forum for redressal of their
grievance, if any, in accordance with law.
Chief Justice
Judge
Judge
Islamabad
02.07.2024
M. Saeed/*
Announced in open Court on ____________
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Comments
Post a Comment