 |
Declaration
Of govt land |
2024 C L C 1193
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, Jhang and another----Petitioners
Versus
ALLAH BAKHSH and others----Respondents
Civil Revision No.925 of 2013, heard on 19th February, 2024.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 42 & 54---Punjab Land Administration Manual, Para. 774---Suit for declaration and injunction---TIRNI GUZAR---Connotation---Non-existing right---Effect---Respondents / plaintiffs were in possession of State land in their capacity of TIRNI GUZAR---Suit was decreed in favour of respondents / plaintiffs concurrently by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---Validity---TIRNI GUZAR is merely a lessee / tenant and is not owner of land leased out to him---In revenue record petitioner / Provincial Government was shown owner of suit land and respondents / plaintiffs were mentioned as illegal occupants upon State land---There was neither any mutation nor any order of allotment ever passed in favour of respondents / plaintiffs---Possession of respondents / plaintiffs over suit land was of an illegal nature---All ethical, moral and legal norms favour law abiding persons and lends no support to illegal occupants, usurpers, transgressors, encroachers and grabbers of State land---Through suit for declaration under S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 only a declaration is issued regarding a pre-existing right and no fresh right can be created---Any suit for declaration with non-existent right is not maintainable---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two courts below as they were the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and failure to apply correct law---Resultantly suit filed by respondents / plaintiff was dismissed---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Fazal ur Rehman and others v. Province of Punjab through District Officer (Revenue) Bhakkar and another 2014 SCMR 1351; Muhammad Sharif through L.Rs v. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Pakpattan 2014 SCMR 334; Shazia Gillani and others v. Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore through Member Colonies and others (in C.P. No.332-L of 2016); Civil Petition No.882-L of 2015; Director Military Lands and Cantonment Quetta Cantt., Quetta and others v. Aziz Ahmed and others 2023 SCMR 860; Al-Shafique Housing Society v. P.M.A PLD 1992 SC 113; Union Council Dhabeji v. Al-Noor Textile Mills Ltd. 1993 SCMR 7; Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee PLD 1995 SC 423; Provincial Government through Collector, Kohat and another v. Shabbir Hussain PLD 2005 SC 337; Abdul Haq Indher v. Province of Sindh 2007 SCMR 907; Taj Muhammad v. Town Committee 1994 CLC 2214; Sindh Peoples Welfare Trust v. Government of Sindh 2005 CLC 713; S.M Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heirs v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (Moin) through Legal Heirs 2002 SCMR 338; Haji Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman 2015 SCMR 1708 and Nazim-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-ul-Qamar and others 2016 SCMR 24 ref.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 72---Documentary evidence---Proof---Producing documents in statement of advocate---Effect---Documents relied upon should be produced in evidence by party in its own statement so that adverse party may have a fair opportunity to cross-examine authenticity or veracity of such documents---Documents produced in statement of counsel of party lack intrinsic value and they can validly be excluded from being taken into consideration.
Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715 and Rustam and Others v. Jehangir (deceased) through LRs. 2023 SCMR 730 rel.
(c) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---
----S. 36---Civil Courts---Jurisdiction---When land is in the ownership of Provincial Government, then under S. 36 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to enter into the vested right of the Revenue hierarchy.
Muhammad Sharif v. Province of Punjab and another 1984 SCMR 1308; Abdul Hamid and others v. Province of the Punjab through Collector Faisalabad and others 1989 SCMR 1741; Alam Sher through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Sharif and 2 others 1998 SCMR 468; Muhammad Ali v. Province of Punjab and others 2005 SCMR 1302 and Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Ahmad and 2 others 2008 SCMR 521 rel.
Raja Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate General for Petitioners.
Sh. Naveed Shahryar, Uneza Siddiqui, Humera Bashir Chaudhary, Safina Safdar Bhatti, Bashir Ahmad Mirza for Respondents.
اھم نکات:
1. تِرنِی گُزار کا موقف: مدعیوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ تِرنِی گُزار ہیں اور سرکاری زمین پر قبضہ رکھتے ہیں۔ تاہم، عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ تِرنِی گُزار صرف لیز پر زمین کے کرایہ دار ہیں، اور ان کا مالک ہونے کا کوئی قانونی حق نہیں ہے۔
2. غیر قانونی قبضہ: مدعیوں کا قبضہ سرکاری زمین پر غیر قانونی تھا، کیونکہ ان کے حق میں کوئی الٹمنٹ یا مٹیشن نہیں کی گئی تھی، اور وہ زمین کو غیر قانونی طور پر استعمال کر رہے تھے۔
3. سپسیفک ریلِیف ایکٹ (1877): عدالت نے سیکشن 42 کے تحت اعلان کرنے کے لیے صرف موجودہ حق کا ہونا ضروری قرار دیا۔ چونکہ مدعیوں کے پاس کوئی قانونی حق نہیں تھا، ان کا دعویٰ مسترد کر دیا گیا۔
4. دستاویزی شہادت: عدالت نے کہا کہ فریقین کی طرف سے پیش کردہ دستاویزات صرف اس وقت قابلِ قبول ہوں گی جب وہ اپنی طرف سے پیش کریں تاکہ مخالف فریق ان کی صداقت پر اعتراض کر سکے۔
5. سیول عدالت کا دائرہ اختیار: چونکہ زمین حکومت کی ملکیت تھی، عدالت نے کولونائزیشن آف گورنمنٹ لینڈز ایکٹ (1912) کے تحت کہا کہ اس نوعیت کے مقدمات میں سیول عدالت کا دائرہ اختیار نہیں ہوتا۔
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.
