Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 179‑R of 1984, decided by 18th November 1984.

(On appeal from the Judgment and Order, dated 25‑4‑1984 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in Writ Petition No. 420 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Revision‑‑Claim to possession of land‑‑Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes while deciding Revision observed that claimants were entitled to get area owned by them but not transferred‑‑Particulars of land not specified‑‑Petitioner allegedly possessing excess area, impugned observation in writ juris diction‑‑High Court while dismissing petition holding that observation was not perverse‑‑Petition for special leave being without substance, dismissed by Supreme Court.

Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Abdul Shakoor, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.5.

Date of hearing: 18th November, 1984.

.‑‑ The petitioner impugned the order of the High Court, dated 23rd of April, 1984, in Writ Petition No. 420 of 1982 by which the order of the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir, Swat and Chitral at Mardan, was upheld.

While rejecting the revision filed by Zila Khan and Nematullah, brothers inter se claiming certain land held by Nawabzada Muhammad Shah Khan of Hayaseri, the Tribunal held:

"The file does not specifically clarify the land which belonged to the plaintiff /petitioner but if they own any more land which has not been transferred by the aforesaid deeds and that is in possession of the defendant /respondent they are entitled to get it from him."

This observation was made while conceding to the petitioner that he legally held 52 Sattas of land.

The grievance of the petitioner was that the above observation should not have been made as it has led to the filing of the execution proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Dir, against the petitioner when the Chairman had not declared the respondents to be the owners of the suit property in possession of the petitioner with reference to any specific area, boundaries and Khasra Numbers etc.

The High Court while dismissing the petition held that the petitioner was declared as an owner of 52 Sattas of land, but if he held some more land than what was held to be his, the respondents could claim that land and in that context the observation was not perverse. The respondents‑ had claimed that the petitioner had forcibly taken possession of land measuring three rupees equivalent to 330 Sattas and if that was so then after excluding 52 Sattas of land sold to him, the respondents could claim the balance of the area in possession of the petitioner in the absence of any specification with reference to boundaries, area and Khasra Numbers etc.

In this view of the matter, the petition is without any substance and is dismissed.

M. I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.