متنازعہ اراضی کا فیصلہ سول کورٹ کرے گی
حوالہ:
2004 SCMR 604
⚖️ سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا اہم فیصلہ
🔹 معاملہ کیا تھا؟
اس مقدمے میں زرعی زمین کے انتقالات نمبر 1599 اور 1940 میں درج اندراجات کی تبدیلی کا معاملہ سامنے آیا۔ درخواست گزار کلکٹر کے ذریعے ان انتقالات سے متعلق کارروائی چاہتے تھے، جبکہ دوسرے فریق نے کلکٹر کے اختیار کو غیر قانونی قرار دیتے ہوئے سول کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔
🔹 ماتحت عدالتوں کا فیصلہ
ابتدائی طور پر سول کورٹ نے دعویٰ مسترد کردیا، جس کے خلاف اپیل بھی خارج ہوگئی۔ تاہم لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے سول دعویٰ کی سماعت جاری رکھنے اور مقدمے کا فیصلہ چھ ماہ میں کرنے کی ہدایت جاری کی۔
🔹 سپریم کورٹ نے کیا قرار دیا؟
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب فریقین کے درمیان جائیداد کے حقوق اور متعلقہ حقائق متنازعہ ہوں تو ان کا فیصلہ باقاعدہ سماعت اور شہادت کا مناسب موقع فراہم کرنے کے بعد ہونا چاہیے۔ طویل عرصے سے ریونیو ریکارڈ میں موجود اندراجات کو کلکٹر مختصر کارروائی کے ذریعے تبدیل کرکے ایسے متنازعہ حقوق کا حتمی فیصلہ نہیں کرسکتا۔
🔹 مقدمے کا نتیجہ
سپریم کورٹ نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے میں مداخلت کی کوئی وجہ نہیں پائی اور اپیل کی اجازت دینے سے انکار کرتے ہوئے درخواست خارج کردی۔ اس طرح سول کورٹ میں دعویٰ کی سماعت جاری رکھنے کا حکم برقرار رہا۔
✅ اہم قانونی اصول
جب زمین کی ملکیت یا فریقین کے حقوق سے متعلق حقیقی تنازع موجود ہو تو محض ریونیو ریکارڈ میں تبدیلی کی مختصر کارروائی اس تنازع کا متبادل نہیں بن سکتی۔ ایسے معاملات میں سول کورٹ شواہد کی بنیاد پر حقوق کا تعین کرسکتی ہے۔
قانونی حوالہ: Nemat Ali and another v. Malik Habib Ullah and others, 2004 SCMR 604.
Must read judgment.
2004 S CMR 604
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ
NEMAT ALI and another--Petitioners
Versus
Malik HABIB ULLAH and others---Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1373-L of 1999, decided on 5th March, 2003.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6-8-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No. 1203 of 1999).
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
-S. 42-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9-Change of longstanding entries in Revenue Record in summary manner by Collector-Validity-Rights of parties qua disputed property required determination after giving them fair opportunity to adduce evidence---Factual controversies could only be resolved by Civil Court having Civil Court having plenary jurisdiction.
Saiful Malook, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Manzoor Hussain Butt, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 5th March, 2003.
ORDER
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.----Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 6-8-1999 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, accepted oted Civil Revision Revision No. No. 1203 1203 of of 1999 1999 filed filed by by respondent No.1 and remitted the case to the learned trial Court with a direction to decide the suit within six months.
-
The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners moved an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore, for the review of Mutations bearing Nos. 1599 and 1940 whereby agricultural land was purchased by respondent No.1. On the said application an orde n order was passed by the Collector directing the Tehsildar for its disposal as per law. The respondent filed a suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction on 30-6-1997 respecting the assumption of jurisdiction by the Collector being illegal and void. The petitioners controverted the stance taken by the respondent and moved an application for the rejection of plaint under A Order VII, rule 11, C.PC. The learned trial Court through its order dated 12-3-1998 rejected the plaint. An appeal was filed assailing the above order, which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, through his judgment dated 29-6-1999. The respondent filed 4foresaid civil revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been accepted by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 6-8-1999 and the case, as already stated in the opening paragraph, stands remitted to the trial Court. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
-
We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended. with this petition with their assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioners wanted change of long standing entries in the Revenue Record in a summary manner by the Collector. The rights of the parties as agitated by both the sides are to be determined qua the property under dispute by giving them fair opportunity to adduce their evidence. Admittedly, in the present case these factual controversies can only be resolved by the Civil Court which has got the plenary jurisdiction. Even otherwise, we have noticed that this litigation started in the year 1997 and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court gave a specific direction for the disposal of the matter to the trial Court within six months. This petition remained pending before this Court for about four years.
-
Taking stock of all the aforesaid features of the case into consideration, we do not find any justification to interfere with the well-
reasoned judgment of the learned single judge of the Lahore High duration,
The instant petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. The interim order dated 26-8-1999 of this Court is hereby recalled..
S.A.K./N-182/S
Leave refused