Shamilat Deh

2025 CLC 1247 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. VII, R. 11, O.I, Rr. 9 & 10 & O.VI, R. 17Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 135Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54Shamilat DehSuit for declaration alongwith permanent and mandatory injunctionMisjoinder and non-joinder of necessary partyAmendments in pleadingsScope

Application for rejection of plaint was accepted on the grounds that neither relief of possession was claimed in the suit, nor the entire propriety body of the Shamilat Deh was impleaded as party

Appellate Court set aside order of rejection of plaint and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision on merits

Validity

Co-sharer in exclusive possession of a certain portion of joint land can retain possession of the same to the extent of his shares, so long as there is no official partition between the co-sharers by metes and bounds

Suit filed by a co-owner under the provisions of S. 42 read with S. 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is maintainable, who is in possession of a piece of Shamilat land, which has not yet been partitioned and there is a denial to his title and threat to his possession by the other members of the proprietary body

Plaint cannot be rejected for want of impleadment of entire proprietary body of the village because the necessary and proper party can be impleaded by the Court, at any stage, of the proceedings in order to pass an effective decree in terms of the provisions of O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C.

No suit shall be defeated on account of mis-joinder or non-joinder of the necessary parties, rather, the courts are mandated to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the rights and interests of the parties directly involved therein, as postulated by O.1, R. 9 of C.P.C.

Plaint could not be rejected merely for want of non-seeking therein a consequential relief, despite being mandatory in such like suits, rather, the Trial Court could direct the plaintiff to amend his plaint by including consequential relief therein in order to secure ends of justice

Suit cannot be dismissed on account of any defect in its form and the court is competent to direct amendment in plaint for extending relief to which the party is otherwise entitled on merits

Courts should exercise their powers liberally while allowing the amendments in the cases where such amendments are necessary to secure the ends of justice

Civil revision was partially allowed, in the circumstances and impugned findings of Appellate Court were modified to the extent that the respondent was allowed to file an amended plaint seeking therein partition of the entire Shamilat Deh by impleading the entire proprietary body of the village and consequential relief of possession.

2023 MLD 1204 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 39Shamilat DehMalik QabzaMeaning

Person is said to be a Malik Qabza who has been transferred rights only to a piece of land without the right to Shamilat.

2023 MLD 1204 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 39Shamilat Deh

Meaning.

2019 CLC 1291 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declaration and partitionShamilat DehEffectLand in question was Shamilat DehNothing was on record with regard to names or shares of the sharers of suit landCivil Court had limited jurisdiction with regard to Shamilat Deh land

No specific share could be declared to be in possession of any land owner unless Shamilat Deh land was partitioned by metes and bounds by revenue authorities

Shamilat Deh land whenever divided was to be divided in accordance with ancestral shares of the proprietors amongst them

Other residents of the village, occupants of land or tenant at will or even the owner of land who acquired ownership right as Malik-Qabza would not be entitled to any share in the common property of village Shamilat

Trial Court had passed decree against law in favour of plaintiffs

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Court below were not sustainable which were set aside

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

2017 MLD 318 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 5Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993, PreambleAzad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 44Writ petitionMaintainabilityShamilat dehEjectment order passed by the Revenue OfficerTehsildar/Assistant Collector passed ejectment order against which appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue

High Court remanded the matter before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector for disposal after considering the mutation in accordance with law

Validity

Mutation was required to be sanctioned by the Settlement Officer or Assistant Officer

Tehsildar/Assistant Collector could not sanction the mutation without the approval of Settlement Officer

No alternate remedy against the decision of Board of Revenue was provided in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993 and the rules framed thereunder

Writ petition filed before the High Court was competent

Respondents had rightly challenged the findings of revenue authorities before the High Court to seek efficacious and alternate remedy

Revenue Courts had not considered the alleged mutation in favour of respondents which was mis-reading of record

Concurrent findings of Revenue Courts suffering from legal errors were not maintainable

Judgment of High Court did not adversely affect the rights of the parties as case was remanded to the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector for disposal after considering the mutation in accordance with law

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was based on facts and record

No illegality or irregularity was pointed out in the impugned judgment

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 MLD 1452 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Co-sharer could not be dispossessed from the Shamilat deh land until it was partitioned by the revenue authorities by metes and bounds.

2011 MLD 521 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Shamilat Deh (village common land) being joint and un-partitionedValidity

Persons recorded in proprietary body of village would be entitled to Shamilat Deh to the extent of their respective proprietary holding in village

Any of such persons could claim possession only through partition of entire Shamilat Deh, but not otherwise

Principles.

2007 SCMR 741 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Land situated inSuch land reserved by inhabitants of village as graveyardEffectGraveyard would .mean a place for interment of dead bodies

Such land, once reserved for graveyard, would not remain property of any individual.

2003 YLR 1332 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ownership of specific numbers could not be earmarked without partition of Shamilat Deh.

1974 PLD 193 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Right of co-sharer in shamlat deh-Joint owner appropriating exclusive possession of portion of shamlat-Entitled to maintain his possession undisturbed until partition-Shamlat deh owned by proprietors of village both Muslims and non-Muslims-Property could not be declared evacuee until joint khata partitioned.