1991 PLP 1648 (SCMR)
ATTA MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus Sahibzada MANZOOR AHMAD through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1648 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | ATTA MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus Sahibzada MANZOOR AHMAD through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1648 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1648 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1648 (SCMR) (ATTA MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus Sahibzada MANZOOR AHMAD through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Ayub Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1990.
- Syed Muhammad Ayub Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 24-4-1989, in Civil Revision No.917 of 1975).
S. 42(7)
Constitution of Pakistan. (1973) Art. 185(3)
Dispute relating to possession of land in Shamlal Deh
Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that he was owner of the Deb and that the suit land being Shamlat, his possession thereof, could not be interfered with till, partition; was dismissed by the Trial Court but decreed in appeal and revision- Leave to appeal
Contention raised was; that while giving some importance to a part of the Revenue Record which went in plaintiff's favour, Courts below had ignored those entries which were in favour of defendant; that while according to record of rights owners in Deh were owners in Shamlat in accordance with their other land holding i.e. Hasab Rasad-Khewat, an owner could retain possession only in accordance with his share, respondent claimed possession over a much bigger disputed area; that mutation in favour of defendant regarding Tanazia Kasht, could not have been ignored merely on the ground of the absence of respondent's side, because such mutation was being attested as a result of orders by the higher authorities which were passed after hearing the parties and lower authorities were only implementing the orders of those authorities; thus respondents' absence at the time of attestation of disputed mutation could not have been given any importance
Questions raised require examination
Leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is being sought by a defendant against the dismissal by the High Court of his civil revision which had arisen out of a dispute between the parties regarding possession of land in the Shamlat Deh. The suit of the respondent's side, for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff was owner of the Deh and that the suit land being Shamlat, his possession thereof could not be interfered with till partition, was dismissed. The plaintiffs ‑appeal was allowed. His suit was decreed. And the petitioner's civil revision having been dismissed on the finding that the plaintiff was in possession of disputed land, leave to appeal has now been sought. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while giving some importance to a part of the Revenue Record which went in respondent's favour the learned two Courts below ignored those entries which were in favour of the petitioner. He has also contended that while according to the record of rights the owners in the Deh were owners in Shamlat in accordance With their other land holding Hasab, Rasad‑Khewet, an owner could retain possession only in accordance with his share. The respondent claimed possession over a much bigger disputed area. He also referred to the provisions of subsection (7) of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act to contend that the mutation in favour of the petitioner regarding Tanazia Kasht could not have been ignored merely on the ground of the absence of the respondent's side; because as he contended, the mutation was being attested as a result of orders by the higher authorities. They were passed after hearing them and the lower authorities were only implementing the orders of the high authorities. In that context he further argued that it being only the implementation of the orders of the higher authorities the absence of the respondent's side at the time of the attestation of the disputed mutation, could not have been given any importance. These and other questions raised in these petitions require examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.5,
000. A.A./A‑712/S Leave granted.