2002 PLP 375 (MLD)
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 375 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sair Ali, J |
| Parties | MAQBOOL HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 375 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 375 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 375 (MLD) (MAQBOOL HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Munir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th July, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XX, Rr. 5, 9 & 12‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Ravenue Rules, 1968, R.67‑A‑‑‑Suit for possession and mesne profits‑‑‑Respondents claimed that petitioner had raised unauthorised construction over the suit land‑‑ Petitioner filed wtitten statement resisting the suit on several grounds including misdescription of suit land, which gave rise to framing of 8 issues in the case‑‑‑Respondent produced in evidence copies of Register Haqdaran‑e‑Zamin, Report of demarcation proceedings and Naqsha demarcation‑‑‑Trial Court decided three issues in favour of respondent and decreed the suit while leaving remaining issues undecided for want of evidence thereupon‑‑‑Appellate Court dismissed appeal filed by petitioner‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such documents could be termed as titled documents proving ownership of respondent‑‑‑Copy of Register Haqdaran‑e‑Zamin produced in evidence was photocopy and was inadmissible in evidence‑‑‑Demarcation report and Naqsha had been prepared at the back of petitioner without notice to him, which could not be relied upon for decision of controversy of title and description of suit land between the parties‑‑‑Respondent had not produced in evidence application for demarcation to show parties thereto, notices served upon petitioner to prove his participation in demarcation proceedings nor had summoned concerned Revenue Officer or record from Revenue Office to prove due compliance with mandatory provisions of R. 67‑q of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968‑‑‑Respondent, after making general statement in examination‑in‑chief, had denied knowledge of each and every fact put to him including description/identity/boundaries of suit land, petitioner's alleged occupation, modalities of demarcation and service of notice‑‑‑Courts below had not considered evidence of petitioner in support of his case‑‑‑Record showed existence of adequate material and evidence for resolution of issues left undecided by Courts below, who had thus, failed to comply with mandatory provision of O.XX, R.5, C.P.C.‑‑‑Courts below had not only failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them, but had also exceeded .their jurisdiction in passing impugned judgments and decrees‑‑‑High Court remanded the case to Trial Court for its fresh decision in accordance with law. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 67‑A(4)(c)(5)‑‑‑Demarcation of land‑‑‑Service of notice mandatory‑‑‑Before starting demarcation proceedings, under sub rule 4(c) of R. 67‑A of the Rules, 1968, Revenue Officer shall cause a notice in Form 33‑B to be issued to the parties to application and to any other person whose presence is considered by him necessary‑‑‑Service of such notice is mandatory under sub‑rule (5) of R.67‑A.
Judgment & Decree
(d) ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (e) ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (g)
‑‑‑‑ (2) (a) ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (b) ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (3) (a) ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (b) ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑- (4) The Revenue Officer concerned shall: (a) (b) ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (c) cause a notice if Form XXXIII‑B to be issued in duplicate to‑‑ (i) the parties to the application; (ii) Lambardar of the village in which the land mentioned in the application is situated; (iii) Field Kanungo of the Circle; (iv) Revenue Patwari of the village if the notice is to be served through him; and (v) any other person whose presence at the time of demarcation of boundaries is considered necessary or expedient by the Revenue Officer. (5) The notice issued under clause (c) of the preceding sub‑rule shall be served on the person mentioned therein, in the following modes, at least one week before the date fixed for demarcation of land:‑‑ (a) By delivering a copy thereof to the person mentioned therein and obtaining his signature or thumb impression on duplicate copy in token of his having received the same; (b) In case of refusal to receive the notice or absence of such person, by affixing a copy thereof on the outer‑door of his house of place of residence, in the presence of at least one witness and also by beat of drum at the expense of the applicant; (c) If any person to be served is residing at a place, other than the village in which the land is situated, notice shall be served on him, by means of registered post ' Acknowledgement due', or by any other means as the Revenue Officer deems fit. The expense for such service shall be brone by the applicant. (6) At the time and on the date fixed for demarcation of boundaries, the Revenue Officer shall, in the presence of the parties and other persons mentioned in clause (c) of sub‑rule (4) as may be present in response to the notice served on them, cause the measurement of the land to be taken under his personal supervision, strictly in accordance with the instructions and standing orders on the subject issued by the Financial Commissioner and the Board of Revenue from time to time. (7) (a)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (i)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑. (ii)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (iii)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (iv)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (v)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (b)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ (c)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ The petitioner failed to produce in evidence application for demarcation to show parties thereto, notices duly served upon the petitioner to prove his participation in demarcation proceedings, or to summon the relevant Revenue Officer or the record from the Revenue Officer to prove due compliance with the mandatory provisions of the above quoted Rules. It is, therefore, held that Exh.P.2 i.e. demarcation and Exh.P.3 i.e. Naqsha demarcation are not legally binding and valid documents qua the rights of the petitioner for the purposes of deciding Issues Nos.5, 6 and 7 between the parties to the suit. The only other evidence presented by the respondent in support of his case was his own statement as P.W.1. After making the general statement in examination‑in‑chief, the respondent in cross‑examination denied knowledge of each and every fact put to him including the description of property, its boundaries, modalities of demarcation, service of notice, petitioner's alleged occupation and identity of suit property. As such the statement of respondent was also inadequate in resolution of questions of identity, title possession of suit land and period of such occupation for said issues.
6. It is also noteworthy that the learned Courts below for decision upon said issues had neither attended to nor considered oral and documentary evidence presented‑by the petitioner in support of his case, wherefor impugned judgments and decrees cannot be survived.
7. A cursory examination of the evidence also supports the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was adequate material and evidence on record to give judgment on Issues Nos. 1 to 5 or at least some of them but the Courts below failed to apply their mind to the same. The learned Additional District Judge also overlooked the specific grounds raised in appeal seeking a decision upon the said issues. As such, the learned Courts below have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of rule 5 of Order XX; C.P.C.
8. As a result thereof his revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Civil Judge, Multan for re decision in accordance with law within a period of three months. The parties are left to bear their own costs. S.A.K./M.A.K./ M‑825/L Case remanded.