P L D 2000 Peshawar 68 (PLP)
S. MISAL SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IKRAM SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2000 Peshawar 68 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad AJmal, C. J. and Tariq Parvez, J |
| Parties | S. MISAL SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IKRAM SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Peshawar 68 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Peshawar 68 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mian Muhammad AJmal, C. J. and Tariq Parvez, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Peshawar 68 (PLP) (S. MISAL SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IKRAM SHAH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Khurshid Ali assisted by Salim Dil Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Alam Khan for Respondent No. l against Pre‑admission Notice.
- Date of hearing:.20th April, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) North‑West Frontier Province Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 2‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Sale of jointly possessed land‑‑‑Status of tenant‑‑‑Land in dispute originally was under ownership of a lady who was in "Hissadari" possession therein and petitioner was claimed to be a co‑sharer in the land had been recorded as tenant under the said lady‑‑‑Land in dispute having been sold by said lady to respondent by transferring all her rights, petitioner could become a tenant in terms of S.2 of North‑West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950‑‑‑Petitioner who had claimed that he was owner through purchase of certain portion of land in dispute, could seek his remedy against vendor thereof‑‑‑Where co‑sharers were holding possession of defined area i.e. an area acquired through purchase which stood specified in respective mutations, notwithstanding the fact that various owners were co‑sharers, but due to their definite respective titles, it would be within jurisdiction of Court to pass order of their ejectment. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Finding of fact by as many as three forums, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ PARVEZ, J.‑‑‑Ikram Shah respondent instituted Suit No.49/1 against the petitioner in the Court of Revenue EAC, Mardan for produce and ejectment in respect of land measuring 57 Kanals 15 Marlas allegedly purchased by the respondent Ikram Shah from one Mst. Rahata through Mutation No.581 attested on 30‑5‑1996. The suit was partially decreed where prayer of .the respondent to the extent of produce for one year was allowed but ejectment was denied as it was held that the parties are co sharers. Respondent not satisfied with the order, filed an appeal before the Collector, Mardan who on 17‑3‑1999 allowed the said appeal and passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner before Additional Commissioner, Mardan which was dismissed on 10‑7‑1999 and similar fate meted out to the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of Member, Board of Revenue on 30‑9‑1999.
2. It is argued before us that according to the revenue record the petitioner was owner and a co‑sharer in the property and his rights accrued to him in the property earlier than the alleged Mutation No.581 dated 30‑5‑1996 through which the respondent claims his ownership over the suit property. It was contended that the property comprising of Khasra Nos.2017 and 2018 is jointly owned property and co‑sharer cannot be ejected unless partition takes place.
3. The perusal of record would show that the land was originally under the ownership of Mst. Rahata who was in 'Hissadari' possession therein and the petitioner has been recorded as tenant under her. The said land was then sold by Mst. Rahata to the respondent with transferring all her rights, therefore, the petitioner would become a tenant in terms of section 2 of the N.‑W.F.P. Tenancy Act. As regards the contention that the petitioner is owner through purchase of certain portion of the Khasra numbers, he could seek his remedy against the vendor. It is also worth mentioning that the original order where decree for produce was passed against the petitioner, the same was not challenged showing acquiescence of the petitioner regarding his acceptance of his status as tenant. Otherwise too, where the co‑sharers are holding possession of the defined area i.e. an area acquired through purchase which stands specified in the respective mutations, notwithstanding the fact that various owners are co‑sharers but due to their definite respective titles it will be within the jurisdiction of the Court to pass an order of ejectment as in the instant case. In view of the fact that there is finding of fact against the petitioner by as many as three forums in favour of respondent Ikram Shah, we see no e ground to interfere in the matter and therefore, dismiss the writ petition: H.B.T./76/P Petition dismissed.