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

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.










 



 







































 



































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Property ki taqseem ,Warasat main warson ka hisa

Punishment for violation of section 144 crpc | dafa 144 in Pakistan means,kia hai , khalaf warzi per kitni punishment hu gi،kab or kese lagai ja ja sakti hai.

Bachon ki custody of minors after divorce or separation