Settlement | The Supreme Court held that the Government's claim to unassigned land is valid only if it is acquired by legal process or is not an heir to the land, and since the respondent proved his right to the land, it Therefore, the government's claim was rejected. date of hearing 15/04/2022 Civil Appeal No. 190 0f 2015

The Supreme Court held that the Government's claim to unassigned land is valid only if it is acquired by legal process or is not an heir to the land, and since the respondent proved his right to the land, it Therefore, the government's claim was rejected.
date of hearing 15/04/2022
Civil Appeal No. 190 0f 2015




اس کیس کے اہم
 نکات درج ذیل ہیں:

1. ملکیت کا تنازعہ: یہ کیس زمین کی ملکیت کے دعوے پر مبنی تھا۔ صوبائی حکومت نے دعویٰ کیا کہ زمین ان کی ملکیت ہے کیونکہ یہ "غیر متعین" (unsettled) زمین تھی، جبکہ جواب دہندہ نے زمین پر اپنے حقِ ملکیت کا دعویٰ کیا اور ثابت کیا کہ وہ اس زمین پر قابض بھی ہے۔


2. ثبوت کی بنیاد: حکومت کے پاس زمین کی ملکیت کا کوئی دستاویزی ثبوت نہیں تھا۔ جواب دہندہ نے زبانی شواہد اور مقامی کمشنر کی رپورٹ کے ذریعے اپنے قبضے اور ملکیت کو ثابت کیا۔ اس بنیاد پر عدالت نے جواب دہندہ کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔


3. ایسچیٹ کا حق (Escheat Right): آئین کے آرٹیکل 172 کے مطابق، حکومت بے وارث یا غیر مالکانہ زمین پر حق کا دعویٰ کرسکتی ہے، لیکن یہاں ایسا معاملہ نہیں تھا۔ جواب دہندہ نے اس زمین پر ملکیت اور قبضے کا دعویٰ پیش کیا تھا، جسے حکومت نے مسترد نہیں کیا۔


4. حکومت کی ذمہ داری: عدالت نے اس بات کو بھی اجاگر کیا کہ زمینی معاملات میں ریکارڈ مرتب کرنے کی ذمہ داری حکومت کی ہے۔ جب یہ زمینی ریکارڈ مرتب نہیں ہوا تو مالکان سے دستاویزی ثبوت کا مطالبہ غیر منطقی ہے۔


5. آرٹیکل 23 اور 24: عدالت نے آئین کے آرٹیکلز 23 اور 24 کا حوالہ دیا جو پاکستانی شہریوں کو ملکیت حاصل کرنے، برقرار رکھنے اور فروخت کرنے کا بنیادی حق فراہم کرتے ہیں۔



اہم نکتہ: عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر کوئی زمین غیر متعین ہو تو حکومت کا دعویٰ صرف اسی وقت مضبوط ہوگا جب وہ باقاعدہ قانونی طریقہ کار کے ذریعے یا ایسچیٹ کے اصول کے مطابق زمین حاصل کرے۔ جواب دہندہ نے زمین پر اپنی ملکیت اور قبضے کے حق کو زبانی شواہد اور کمیونٹی کی مدد سے ثابت کر دیا تھا، اس لیے حکومت کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا گیا۔

یہ ایک پاکستانی سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے کا متن ہے، جس میں زمین کے تنازع کے متعلق ایک اپیل کا فیصلہ بیان کیا گیا ہے۔ اس کیس میں ریاست خیبر پختونخوا کی حکومت نے زمین کو اپنی ملکیت قرار دیا تھا، لیکن جواب دہندگان (نورانی گوٹھ) نے اس زمین پر اپنی ملکیت اور قبضے کا دعویٰ کیا۔ ابتدائی عدالتی فیصلے میں زمین پر حکومت کا حق تسلیم کیا گیا تھا، تاہم پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے جواب دہندہ کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔

سپریم کورٹ میں حکومتی وکیل نے دعویٰ کیا کہ ہائی کورٹ نے شواہد کی درست تشریح نہیں کی، اور زمین کی ملکیت کے ثبوت کو ٹھیک سے نہیں دیکھا گیا۔ سپریم کورٹ نے کیس کی سماعت کے بعد فیصلہ دیا کہ چونکہ حکومت کے پاس زمین کے حوالے سے کوئی ٹھوس دستاویزی ثبوت نہیں تھا، اور جواب دہندہ نے زبانی شواہد اور مقامی کمشنر کی رپورٹ سے اپنے قبضے اور ملکیت کو ثابت کیا، لہٰذا ان کا دعویٰ حکومت کے دعوے سے زیادہ مضبوط ہے۔

مزید برآں، عدالت نے آرٹیکل 172 کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ حکومت کا "ایسچیٹ" کا حق اس وقت لاگو ہوتا ہے جب کوئی پراپرٹی بے وارث ہو، یا ایسی صورت میں جب کوئی شخص بغیر ورثا کے انتقال کر جائے۔ لیکن چونکہ یہاں معاملہ مختلف ہے اور جواب دہندہ نے اپنی ملکیت کو ثابت کیا ہے، اس لیے حکومت کو اس پر حق کا دعویٰ کرنے کا اختیار نہیں۔

عدالت نے حکومت کی اپیل کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے جواب دہندہ کے حق میں فیصلہ برقرار رکھا۔
یہ ایک پاکستانی سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے کا متن ہے، جس میں زمین کے تنازع کے متعلق ایک اپیل کا فیصلہ بیان کیا گیا ہے۔ اس کیس میں ریاست خیبر پختونخوا کی حکومت نے زمین کو اپنی ملکیت قرار دیا تھا، لیکن جواب دہندگان (نورانی گوٹھ) نے اس زمین پر اپنی ملکیت اور قبضے کا دعویٰ کیا۔ ابتدائی عدالتی فیصلے میں زمین پر حکومت کا حق تسلیم کیا گیا تھا، تاہم پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے جواب دہندہ کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا۔

سپریم کورٹ میں حکومتی وکیل نے دعویٰ کیا کہ ہائی کورٹ نے شواہد کی درست تشریح نہیں کی، اور زمین کی ملکیت کے ثبوت کو ٹھیک سے نہیں دیکھا گیا۔ سپریم کورٹ نے کیس کی سماعت کے بعد فیصلہ دیا کہ چونکہ حکومت کے پاس زمین کے حوالے سے کوئی ٹھوس دستاویزی ثبوت نہیں تھا، اور جواب دہندہ نے زبانی شواہد اور مقامی کمشنر کی رپورٹ سے اپنے قبضے اور ملکیت کو ثابت کیا، لہٰذا ان کا دعویٰ حکومت کے دعوے سے زیادہ مضبوط ہے۔

مزید برآں، عدالت نے آرٹیکل 172 کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ حکومت کا "ایسچیٹ" کا حق اس وقت لاگو ہوتا ہے جب کوئی پراپرٹی بے وارث ہو، یا ایسی صورت میں جب کوئی شخص بغیر ورثا کے انتقال کر جائے۔ لیکن چونکہ یہاں معاملہ مختلف ہے اور جواب دہندہ نے اپنی ملکیت کو ثابت کیا ہے، اس لیے حکومت کو اس پر حق کا دعویٰ کرنے کا اختیار نہیں۔

عدالت نے حکومت کی اپیل کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے جواب دہندہ کے حق میں فیصلہ برقرار رکھا۔


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALT SHAH
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL 10-IAN MANDOKHAIL
(p.i)4flt
Cvii Apnul No. 190 of 2015
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar
High Court Mingora Bench (Dar at Qaza) Swat
dated 19.03.2012 passed in C.R. No. 425 of
2003)
Government of Ki' thr. Secretary Home & TAs and ... Appellant(s)
others
VERSUS
Noorani Got thr. LRs
... Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s)
Mian Shafaqat Jan, Addl. AG KP
All Rehman, SI (Legal)
For the Respondent(s)
Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, ASCIAOR
(through video link from Peshawar)
Date of Hearing
15.04.2022
JUDGMENT
Jamal Khan Mandokhai!, J. Facts in brief are that the land
settlement proceedings were conducted in the year 1986, wherein, the unsettled
property was recorded in the name of the Provincial Government. The
respondent claiming to be its owner, challenged the entries through the instant
suit. He claimed that the land described in the plaint belonged to him, which is
in his cultivated possession. The trial court decreed the suit. whereas, the
r appellate court reversed the findings. The respondent filed a civil revision
before the learned Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench, which was allowed
and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was maintained. The
appellants filed a civil petition for leave to appeal, wherein leave was granted
by this Court on 17" March, 2015, in following terms:-
"Heard the learned Additional Advocate General, K? as well as
the learned AX for the respondent and perused the record
There are conflicting judgments of the Courts below.
Civil Appeal No. 190.f2015
2. Learned Additional Advocate General contends that the
impugned judgment is based on misreading and non-reading of
evidence.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to examine inter alia the above
contention. Till the hearing of the appeal, parties shall maintain
status-quo in respect of disputed property.
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. Admitted facts of the case are that the land in question was unsettled,
having no revenue record. The government started first settlement proceedings
in the area, which were completed in the year 1986, wherein, the land in
question was recorded in the name of the government. Perusal of the record
would reveal that there is no evidence to prove that before the settlement
proceedings, the government was either owner or in possession of the disputed
land nor is there any reason in doing so. To the contrary, the respondent has
claimed his ownership and possession over the suit property. The respondent
produced oral evidence to establish his ownership and possession, as the land
had no record before the settlement proceedings, therefore, there was no
possibility of producing documentary proof. During the pendency of these
proceedings, a local commissioner was appointed, who also confirmed the
possession of the respondent. It is a fact that some of the adjacent properties
belonging to several persons have been recorded in their names during the
settlement proceedings, but the government did not dispute their ownership nor
objected the settlement proceedings to their extent.
3.
The land in question was recorded in the name of the
government, merely on account of being an unsettled one. It is a settled
principle of law that in case of claim of ownership of property, the government
is equally responsible to show that the property has either been acquired
through due process of law or it has become its owner, in respect of a property,
which has no rightful owner as provided by Article 172 of the Constitution of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Under the said provision of the
Constitution, the government has the right to take ownership of an unclaimed
or ownerless property. It occurs when an individual dies or disappears with no
will and no heirs and his property remains unclaimed for a considerably

QvaI Appeal N0 190 of 2915
3
prolonged period of time. It refers to a right of "escheat". Before acquiring
such unclaimed or ownerless property through the right of escheat, the
government Is required to follow the procedure provided by law and to invite
objections from general public, through widel y circulated notice through all
mediums of communication.
4.
Admittedly, the government did not acquire the property in
question through sale, gift or exchange, nor had ever claimed its right of
escheat. Simply because the land in question was unsettled, when the first
settlement was started, cannot be termed it as unclaimed or ownerless property.
Since the respondent is claiming to be its rightful owner before the preparation
of record during the settlement proceedings of the year 1986 and also proved
his possession over the land in question, therefore, his claim was superior than
that of the government. As far as the contention of the learned Law Officer that
the respondent has not produced any documentary proof with regard to
ownership of the property in question is concerned, suffice it to observe here
that admittedly before the settlement proceedings, the property in question was
unsettled, having no record to document ownership of the land owners.
According to the Land Revenue Act and the Settlement Manual, it is the
responsibility of the Provincial Government to conduct periodical land
settlement proceedings in respective Provinces, but unfortunately, the needful
was not done. Under such circumstances, the land owners cannot be held
responsible for having no documentary proof It was the government that
neglected its duty to conduct settlement proceedings to incorporate title and
ownership in the record of rights, therefore, the rightful owners could not be
deprived of their fundamental right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in
any part of Pakistan, as enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution.
5.
It is a fact that after merger of the State of Swat into Pakistan, the
properties which were in the ownership of Ruler of Swat, were recorded in the
name of the government, whereas the properties of the individuals/private
persons remained in their own names as is evident from the settlement
proceedings of the year 1986, wherein, names of numerous owners of unsettled
lands have been recorded in the revenue record, but the government did not
question them. Admittedly, the land was unsettled, without any documentary
proof and if documentary proof was to be considered as the only way to prove

Cuif Appeal No. 1900f2015
4
ownership of the land, then the principle applies to the government as well.
The government was bound to prove its ownership with regard to the property
in question, but it did not produce any evidence to establish its ownership
before the first settlement proceedings. As there was no documentary proof
whatsoever of the unsettled land, therefore, possession and control of the
respondent over the land is sufficient proof of ownership, but admittedly, the
government was neither in possession of the property nor the same was under
its control or supervision. The claim of the government is since not supported
by any evidence, therefore, merely on the basis of the land being unsettled, is
not a rightful claim. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf
of appellant-government has not been able to substantiate the stance of the
government nor has highlighted any point of law warranting interference in the
findings of the learned High Court.
These are the reasons for our short order dated 15.04.2022, which
is reproduced herein below:-
For reasons to be recorded separately,
dismissed,
B-V]
slamabajilic
5.04.2022
APPROVED 

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