Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.711-D of 1986, decided on 17th January, 1987.

---Para.26--Violation of Regulation--- Authority to deal with Jurisdiction of civil Court--Exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any violation of Land Reforms Regulation 1972 vested with Land Commission Where order against petitioner for violation of Regulation was passed lower forum of Land Commission, petitioner, held, could avail remedy of appeal, review or revision before higher forums thereof, but matter could not be straightaway agitated before civil Court without availing remedies before competent forums.

Muhammad Bashir v. Ghulam Akbar 1982 S C 4J R 1018, Mst; Anwar Khatun v. The Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore etc. P L D 1971 Lah. 698; Income-tax Officer, Dera Ismail Khan: Sher Muhammad Khan and others P L D 1971 Pesh 153 ref.

Taki Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.

Ch Mushtaq Ahmad Khan assisted by Amjad Pervaiz Malik for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th January, 1987.

This Civil Revision assails the judgment/ decree, dated the 19th of November, 1985, of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot whereby he accepting the appeal reversed the judgment/decree of the trial Court and dismissed the petitioner's suit.

2. A sale of land in question made in favour of the petitioner was struck down by the Deputy Land Commissioner in exercise of his powers vested in him by virtue of the Land Reforms Regulation, 197 2 (M.L.R. 115) on the ground that she was not previously an owner in the estate and, therefore, could not acquire title. She did not challenge that decision before higher officers of that hierarchy and instead brought a civil suit for a declaration that she was, in fact, already an owner in the estate and validly purchased the land in dispute. The trial Court decreed it but the learned Additional District Judge relying upon Muhammad Bashir v. Ghulam Akbar 1982S C M R 1013 and specific provisions of para. 26 of the Regulation held the irrespective of the fact whether the sale was in violation of the Regulation or not, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. This view challenged in the present revision petition.

3. Mr. Taki Ahmad Khan for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the trial Court after perusing evidence recorded a finding of fact that she was already an owner in the estate, the very basis upon which the Deputy Land Commissioner proceeded was absent and. therefore, by virtue of the dictum in Mst. Anwar Khatun v. The Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, etc. P L D 1971 Lah. 698, the Civil Court was quite competent to grant her the relief. In reply, Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for the respondent argued that whether factually the aforementioned ground was available or not could have been broached before the higher forums of the same: hierarchy and that it did not lie for the Civil Court to enter into any discussion about the matter. He referred to Central Government through the Income-tax Officer, Dera Ismail Khan v. Sher Muhammad Khan and others P L D 1971 Pesh. 153 as also sought support from the decision of the Supreme Court relief upon by the lower appellate Court.

4. A perusal of the Mst. Anwer Khatun s case would show that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted if 'the special authority proceeded on the grounds provided by the Statute. Undeniably the ground upon which the Deputy Land Commissioner proceeded was that the petitioner was not previously an owner in the estate, and the Statute provided for striking down any sales made in favour of such a person. The precedent case does not go to determine the factual aspect of the ground but only refers to its availability in the Statute itself. Consequently the Deputy Land Commissioner proceeded on the basis of a ground mentioned in the Statute. He could do so with impunity and to say that factually the petitioner being already an owner was not hit by the provisions of the Regulation, cannot be brought under discussion in Civil Court. It could have been agitated in appeal, review or revision before various officers of the Land Commission and could not have been straightaway employed as a ground for seeking relief from the Civil Court. The Peshawar authority referred to above made it compulsory that all those remedies should have been first exhausted. This was not done in this case perhaps because the petitioner had lost limitation but that too could not help her in taking resort to the plenary jurisdiction of a Civil Court. Finally, the Supreme Court dictum leaves no doubt behind inasmuch as it has been clearly ruled that any violation of the Land Reforms Regulation is an exclusive job for the Land Commission itself rather than Civil Courts. No. exception could be made to the order of the learned Additional District Judge and, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed leaving parties to bear their own costs.

H. B. T. /G-31/L Revision 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.