1995SCMR94 (PLP)
Subedar ZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR94 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Subedar ZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR94 (PLP)?
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 1995SCMR94 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR94 (PLP) (Subedar ZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Wazir Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑3‑1993 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in C. Revision No. 334 of 1987). ‑‑‑‑S. 53‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiffs suit claiming ownership of specific Khasra number was dismissed by all the Courts below on ground that though Khasra number in question, existed in Shajra Kishtwar yet it was not recorded either in settlement record or in subsequent Jamabandis‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Plaintiff's contention was that Khasra number in question was allotted to him in settlement/partition proceedings and such entries were recorded in subsequent Jamabandis and that plaintiff was recorded to be in possession of said Khasra number excepting that in the Jamabandi for specific year wherein defendant was recorded for the first time in possession thereof as Ghair Dakhildar and in the column of Lagan as "Bela Ada Legan"‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention raised by plaintiff as also his further contention that Khasra number in question had been erroneously shown as a different Khasra number i.e. Khasra No.3954/2 has been shown as Khasra No.3954/4; and also to consider whether High Court had properly appraised evidence on record before recording its judgment.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court. Peshawar dated 17‑3‑1993 in Civil Revision No. 334 of 1987. Facts of the case giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are that in the year 1958‑59 land bearing Khasra No. 4859 measuring 37 Kanals 18 Marlas situated in Pir Pai vas spilt up in the subsequent consolidation/partition proceedings into the following parts: Khasra No. 3953. Khasra No. 3953/1 Khasra No. 3953/2 Khasra No. 3954 Khasra No. 3954/1 Khasra No. 3954/2 On 1‑9‑1984 the petitioner brought the present suit against the respondent for declaration that he was owner of land measuring 3 Kanals bearing Khasra No. 3954/2 and Revenue Record in which the defendant is shown in possession of it as 'Bela lagan' is wrong and ineffective on his rights. Prayer for injunction and in the alternative for possession was also made. Respondent/defendant in his written statement resisted the plaintiff s suit on various pleas and stated that Khasra No. 3954/2 does not exist. It was further stated that though Khasra No. 3954/4 exists in the Shajra Kishtwar but it finds no place in the settlement record and the subsequent Jamabandis. The petitioner/plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that Khasra No. 3954/2 does not exist on the spot and on such findings the petitioner's appeal and revision both were dismissed by the learned District Judge and the learned High Court respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the available record perused. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the settlement/ partition proceedings Khasra No. 3954/2 measuring 3 Kanals was allotted to the petitioner/ plaintiff in the year 1964/65 per Jamabandi, copy of which is Exh.PW‑1/9, wherein he is recorded as its sole owner. This entry is repeated in the subsequent Jamabandis of the year 1966‑67, 1970‑71, 1978‑79 and 1982‑
83. The owner is recorded to be in possession in the aforementioned record, excepting that in the Jamabandi for the year 1982‑83 wherein respondent/defendant is for the first time shown in the column of possession as "Ghair Dakheelkar" and in the column of `Lagan' "Bela Ada Legan". It was further contended that Nadir Khan Patwari Halqa (P.W.1) has clearly stated that Khasra Nd. 3954/2 is missing from the field map (Shajra Latha) prepared by the Patwari and there is shown Khasra No. 3954/4. Area of both these Khasra numbers is 3 Kanals. He has further stated that Khasra No. 3954/4 is nowhere mentioned in the settlement record and the subsequent Jamabandis. It was argued that Khasra No. 3954/2 has been erroneousiy shown as Khasra No. 3954/4. Leave is granted to consider the question; whether the learned High Court has properly appraised the evidence on record before passing the impugned judgment. AA./Z‑180/S Leave granted.