2003 PLP 1214 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector and others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1214 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector and others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1214 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1214 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1214 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector and others — Petitioners Versus AHMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Maajid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed Khan Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 20th July 2001.
- We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7-7-1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No. 237 of 1986).
Ss. 42 & 54
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below-- Failure to demarcate the land- Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the land over which 75 trees were standing
Trial Court dismissed the suit but the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit
High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, maintained the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court
Contention of the defendant was that without demarcation, the suit could not be decreed
All the three Courts had given concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff was owner of the land over which 75 trees existed
Defendant failed to bring on record any material to show that the suit-land was owned by him-- Mere allegation that the trees were planted by Forest Department would not by itself confer any title over the land in dispute in favour of the defendant, so also in respect of 75 trees over it when the fact that the trees were planted by the defendant was denied by the plaintiff-- Concurrent findings of fact by all the Courts with regard to the ownership of the suit-land were not interfered with by Supreme Court-- Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.
This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 7-7-1999 passed in Civil Revision No.237 of 1986 by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court whereby said revision was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from claiming the ownership of land or 75 trees on the said property in his ownership and possession which suit was dismissed by the learned .Civil Judge 1st Class, Mianwali as per judgment and decree, dated 6-11-1984. The respondent/plaintiff preferred an Appeal No.34 of 1985 which was allowed as per judgment and decree, dated 29-9-1985 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali. The petitioner/defendant preferred. Civil Revision No.237 of 1986 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed as per impugned order. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land bearing 75 trees having not been demarcated, the decree could not have been passed by the learned Appellate Court and maintained by learned Judge in Chambers, therefore, both judgments/decrees were liable to be set aside. We do not find substance and merit in the said contention. All the three Courts had given concurrent finding of fact that the respondent was the owner of the land in dispute over which 75 trees existed. Nothing has brought on record by the petitioner to show that land in dispute was owned by the petitioner/defendant. Mere allegation that the trees were planted by Forest Department would not by itself confer any title over the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, so also in respect of 75 trees over it when the said fact that 75 trees were planted by the petitioner was denied by the respondent/plaintiff. There is concurrent finding of fact. by all the Courts with regard to the ownership of land in dispute, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. In view of above discussion this petition has no merit consequently leave to appeal is declined and petition is dismissed. M.H./A-58/S Petition dismissed