2006 PLP 671 (CLC)
AMANAT ALI — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WITH POWERS OF COLLECTOR,
| Citation | 2006 PLP 671 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | AMANAT ALI — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WITH POWERS OF COLLECTOR, |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 671 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 671 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 671 (CLC) (AMANAT ALI — Appellant Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WITH POWERS OF COLLECTOR,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz' vice Muhammad Sharif Chohan for Petitioner.
- Kh. Muhammad Saced for Respondents Nos.1 to 3, 5, 11 and 12.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 54
Punjab Jinnah Abadies for non-proprietors in Rural Areas Act (III of 1986), S.3--Suit for permanent injunction-Plaintiff had sought permanent injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in his possession of suit-land contending that he being one of the owners in Shamlat, was in possession of suit-land in his own right--Fact that plaintiff was in possession of suit-land had not been denied by defendants, but defendants had merely asserted that they were entitled to possession under 7 Marlas Scheme for non-proprietors issued by Government under S. 3 of Punjab Jinnah Abadies for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, 1986
Courts below concurrently dismissed suit on ground that suit-land had been allotted to defendants under said Scheme
Assistant Commissioner had acknowledged that plaintiff was an owner in village- -Jamabandi for relevant year had also supported submission/claim of plaintiff that he was entitled to land in Shamlat Deh in his own right
Courts below had seriously misread record and in particular had failed to consider Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi for relevant year showing plaintiff's right in suit property-Impugned decrees of Courts, in circumstances, were not maintainable and were set aside and suit of plaintiff was decreed as prayed for. Other Respondents: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner Amanat Ali filed a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/ defendants from interfering in his possession of land measuring 6 Marlas, 9 Sarsahis. The land is situated in Shamlat Deh. Amanat All is one of the owners in the Shamlat and claims to be in possession of the property in his own right.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.1) has submitted a written statement in which it has been acknowledged that the petitioner is one of the owners in the village. It has merely been stated that he is not the exclusive owner of the suit-land. The remaining defendants, who are respondents Nos.2 to 12 in this petition, submitted in their written statement that they had been allotted land in the village under the 7 Marlas Scheme for non-proprietors issued by the Government under section 3 of the Punjab Jinnah Abadies for Non-proprietors in Rural Areas Act, 1986. The fact that the petitioner is in possession of the suit- land, has not been denied by the respondents. They merely assert that they are entitled to possession under the aforesaid scheme.
3. The learned Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner on the ground that the land in dispute had been allotted to the respondents Nos.2 to 12 under the above-referred scheme. Learned counsel contends that the decrees of the learned trial Court dated 28-4-1993 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 17-1-2001 are contrary to the record and the law. It is argued that the petitioner, being owner in his own right, is in possession of the suit-land and is residing in a house constructed thereon. This land, as such, could not possibly have been allotted to the respondents Nos.2 to 12.
4. Learned counsel has also referred to section 5 of the Punjab Jinnah Abadies for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, wherein title in and allotted thereunder can only be conveyed after construction has been raised by the allottee and he has fulfilled the other conditions of allotment. In the present case, since the petitioner is in possession of the suit-land and is residing therein, there is no question of any title vesting in the private respondents.
5. On the above basis, it is argued that the petitioner was entitled to the permanent injunction claimed by him. The learned trial Court has proceeded on the premises that the petitioner has manoeuvered to get his name recorded in the Khasra Girdawari in respect of the suit-land. Learned counsel submits that this is a result of misreading of the record because the names of the petitioner and his father Barkat Ali appear in the Revenue Record and even the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.1) has acknowledged that the petitioner is an owner in the village. The Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Exh.P.1) supports the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.1) is represented but is not a contesting party inasmuch as the written statement submitted on his behalf, in essence, admitted the stance adopted by the petitioner. The other respondents Nos.2 to 15 have been proceeded against ex pane. Irshad Ahmed (respondent No.l6) is represented by counsel but none has appeared on his behalf although the case has been repeatedly called at intervals. In the circumstances, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, noted above, have remained uncontroverted. The record has also been seen by me which supports the petitioner's contention that he is entitled to the property in the Shamlat Deh in his own right.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the learned Courts below have seriously misread the record and in particular, have failed to consider the Khasra Girdawari and the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Exh.P. I) showing the petitioner's right in the suit property. In the circumstances, the impugned decrees of the learned trial Court dated 28-4-1993 and of the learned Appellate Court dated 17-1-2001 arc not legally sustainable. The same are, therefore, set aside. As a result, the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. H.B.T./A588/L Revision allowed.