Shamilat land

2025 CLC 572 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Punjab Land Dispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance (I of 1959), S.3Land Record Manual, Para 7.19Suit for declarationShamilat landConsolidation proceedingsAlienation of Shamilat land without specifically mentioning it in the sale deed and mutationLegality

Plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of respondents claimed to be exclusive owner in possession of the Shamilat land, as he had only executed sale deed and mutation qua his owned land without mentioning anything as to his share in the Shamilat land

Suit was dismissed, however, the appeal was accepted

Validity

Documents of sale deed and mutation did not show any entry of transfer of Shamilat land

Petitioners purchased only land but not the Shamilat

It was necessary to show in the mutation whether the transfer of land included the shares of the Shamilat

In case of selling of land without specifying Shamilat only the ownership of the land would be transferred and not the Shamilat

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 CLC 725 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42, 39 & 54Suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation, partition and permanent injunctionShamilat landCo-sharerScope

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation, partition and permanent injunction claiming that their father had purchased land measuring 10 rods 16 poles vide a mutation along with share of water and shamilat; that defendants mutated the land in their favour without lawful authority and as such was liable to be cancelled

Suit was resisted by the defendants

Suit was decreed by the trial Court and appeal was dismissed

Validity

Record transpired that the suit property bearing khasra No. 667 was mutated as Shamilat land

Subsequently the petitioners transferred it vide a mutation in their names

Admittedly, the father of the respondents/plaintiffs purchased the land having seven khasra numbers from a private person and became owner of the property

Shamilat land did not belong to one land owner rather the land owner of the respective area

Thus, there was no valid ground for transfer of the Shamilat land in the names of petitioners

Petitioners had not disputed the document produced by the respondents

Even at the time of exhibition of document the petitioners had not objected meaning thereby that the documents were exhibited without objection

Judgment recorded had presumption of its correctness and credibility was attached to the proceeding before judicial forum

Strong and unimpeachable evidence was required to rebut the presumption which was lacking in the case in hand

Mere bald assertion without any documentary proof could not rebut the judicial proceeding

Petition being devoid of any merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 CLC 1353 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 135, 141 & 172Suit for partitionShamilat landJurisdiction of civil court

Plaintiffs who claimed themselves to be joint owners of suit-land filed suit in representative capacity, praying that suit-land be declared as joint property and be partitioned between the joint owners; so that they could be able to get their respective shares

Defendants resisted the suit claiming that from the last twenty years they were in possession of 1/4th of the suit-land, which devolved on them as their share during course of private partition

Defendants raised objection with regard to jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the matter

Plaintiff claimed relief of partition, but the parties were asserted to be the shareholders with no denial of title

Suit property which was shown to be jointly owned, not only by the parties to the suit, but by other shareholders was Shamilat

Relief of partition, in view of pleadings of the parties, could only be granted while adopting the mode and observing the procedure as provided in West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Party interested in partition of his share in suit property, had to make an application for partition of the land to a Revenue Officer as per provisions of S.135 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section 141 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 had described the procedure for disposal of the questions as to the title in the property

Matters pertaining to partition of landed property, exclusively vested with Revenue Officer, in circumstances; and complete bar on jurisdiction of civil courts as provided in S.172 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 would be in the way

Question of title during course of partition, could only be decided by a civil court under provisions of S.145 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, otherwise it lacked jurisdiction in the matter

Trial/civil court, in circumstances had no jurisdiction in the matter

Judgment and decree passed by Majlis-e-Shoora/Trial Court, having no legal effect, were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.