1979 PLP 365 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUKHTIARKAR KANDIARO ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP 365 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art. 144‑Adverse possession‑Petitioners allegedly purchasing land from evacuees but not getting transaction confirmed by Custodian of Evacuee Property and land vesting in Central Government‑Adverse possession, held, could not be claimed by petitioners against Govern ment merely for reason of being in possession for more than 12 years.‑Adverse possession |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUKHTIARKAR KANDIARO ETC.‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art. 144‑Adverse possession‑Petitioners allegedly purchasing land from evacuees but not getting transaction confirmed by Custodian of Evacuee Property and land vesting in Central Government‑Adverse possession, held, could not be claimed by petitioners against Govern ment merely for reason of being in possession for more than 12 years.‑Adverse possession bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 365 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUKHTIARKAR KANDIARO ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Nasiruddin, Senior Advocate and Vakil Ahmad Kidwal, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th April 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi dated the 16th of July 1978 in Constitutional Petition No. 872 of 1978).
Art. 144‑Adverse possession‑Petitioners allegedly purchasing land from evacuees but not getting transaction confirmed by Custodian of Evacuee Property and land vesting in Central Government‑Adverse possession, held, could not be claimed by petitioners against Govern ment merely for reason of being in possession for more than 12 years.‑[Adverse possession]
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th April 1979. ASLAM RIAZ HUSAIN, J..‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of .the High Court dated the 6th July 1978. The facts giving rise to the petition are briefly as follows;
Faiz Muhammad and three other petitioners claimed to be in continuous possession of a share in the agricultural Survey No. 377 measuring 5.28 acres situated in Deh Kandha, District Nawab Shah. It is stated that Faiz Muhammad petitioner No. 1, and Mohabat, the deceased father of petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. Meeral, Ghulam Mohammad and Ali Murad) along with Ahmad and Piyororam had purchased a share in the aforementioned land from Shewakram and Naraindas, vide a registered sale deed, dated 9th of April 1947. But it is admitted that the petitioners did not get the sale confirmed from the Custodian, although Ahmad and Piyororam got their share of the land confirmed from the Custodian. As a result the land which had fallen to the share of the petitioners came into .the compensation pool and was transferred by the Settlement Authorities to one Rahim Khan, who, in turn, sold it to Abdul Kabir respondent No:
2. The petitioners refused to give Batai to the aforementioned Abdul Kabir. He approached .Mukh tiarkar, respondent No.
1. The latter, who is also the Tribunal constituted under the Sind Tenancy Act, 1950, issued a notice to the petitioners in connection with the payment of Batai to‑ Abdul Kabir respondent requiring them to appear before him on 10‑6‑1978: Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed a writ petition in the Sind High Court which was dismissed on 16‑7‑1978. Hence the present petition for special leave 'to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners‑ has admitted before us that the petitioners have no right over the land in dispute under the Evacuees Laws but contended that they had become owners because of having been in adverse possession of the said land for more than 12 years. We do not find any force in this contention. The petitioners had not got the sale confirmed and after the departure of the Hindu owners the land in question had become vested in the Central Government. Adverse possession could not, in law; be claimed by the petitioners against the Government merely because the are in possession of the disputed land for more than 12 years. The petition in consequently dismissed as having no merit. Petition dismissed.