1999 PLP 1976 (YLR)

Yousuf Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th May, 1999. The respondent is in possession of the suit land as an allottee/transferee of the Provincial Government under the Cattle Breeding Scheme. His possession was sought to be interfered with by the petitioner. A suit for permanent injunction was filed which was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the land is owned by it and also that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? After recording the evidence of the parties the suit was decreed on 23‑10‑1982. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, on 1‑11‑1984.

2. Ch. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the suit property was evacuee trust property as defined in section 2(d) of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and, as such, the learned lower Courts were not possessed of the jurisdiction to pass the impugned decrees.

3. I have gone through record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. According to the evidence on record, the land is, in fact, owned by the Provincial. Government and in the year 1944‑45 was shown to be in possession of Ahal‑i‑Hanood. The property was recorded as "Massan" which is a Hindu place of cremation. According to Jamabandi for the year 1968‑69 the suit land is recorded to be owned by Provincial Government and in possession of the respondent as an allottee under the Cattle Breeding Scheme. There is note on this document that a part of the said area was particularly reserved for the graveyard for the Christian. So far as the particular area in question is concerned, the same is recorded to be "Nehri". Same is the position recorded in the Register Haqdaran for the year 1976‑77 and the Register Khasra Gardawri. Attorney of the respondent appeared as P.W.1 and made a statement in support of the contents of the plaint. No other evidence was produced. In the present case the petitioner was required first to prove that the property was evacuee and then to show that it is a property attached to some charitable, religious or education trust. Under section 8 of the said Act the question which could be determined by the Chairman is "whether an evacuee property is attached to a trust or institution or not?" Apparently the Chairman has no jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the property is evacuee or not which is precise question involved in the present suit. Regarding evacuee property law is well- settled that the jurisdiction to determine the existence of facts giving jurisdiction to a Special Tribunal lies with the Courts of plenary jurisdiction i.e. Civil Courts. The property is recorded to be owned by the Provincial Government both before and after the partition of the sub‑continent. Nothing was brought on record to prove that the property was evacuee. It was only when the property was proved to be an evacuee that the further question of its being attached to some religious or other trust could arise. There is, thus, no occasion for decision of the question involved. Reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698). No other question has been raised. The judgments of the learned trial Court do not call for any interference. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. H.B.T./E‑22/L Revision dismissed.