Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 905 2021 SLD 905 2021 CLC 793
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 2032-P of 2019, decided on 14th September, 2020, Date of hearing: 14th September, 2020.
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Farooq Afridi for Petitioners. Muhammad Sami-ur-Rehman for
Respondents.

ABDUL QAYUM KHAN AND 12 OTHERS

VS

DEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER JUDICIAL, MARDAN AND 7 OTHERS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11,12(2)

Law: Punjab Tenancy Act, (XVI of 1887)

Section: 43,77

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.11 S.12(2)---Punjab Tenancy Act ( XVI of 1887), Ss. 43 77--- West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959---Suit for recovery of the amount of produce along with application for ejectment of tenant---Ownership on the basis of mutation and decree---Effect---Locus standi ---Scope---Defendants (owners-in-possession) filed application for the dismissal of the suit but the relief was not granted by the revenue Courts---Contention of the petitioners (defendants ) was that they were recorded as owners of the suit property in the revenue record---Held, that respondents were not the owners of suit property and said property, vide a mutation in the year 1963, was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners ---Shares of the petitioners, regarding suit-property, were adjusted through a court decree in the year 2004---Record revealed that suit-property (along with other property not the subject-matter of present case) was resumed by the Land Commission under West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, and thereafter, was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and later was transferred to the petitioners had challenged the said decree (passed in the year 2004) before the competent court of law and an application under S.12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, had also been filed and High Court had already passed directions to the Civil Court to decide the cases instituted by the respondents---Record revealed that the said decree as well as mutation were still intact and the petitioners were recorded as co-owner in the record-of-rights in regard to the suit-property---Stranger could not institute suit for produce, unless he had confirmed his title before the Civil Court ---Impugned s passed by the Member Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner ( Revenue) were without jurisdiction and were rendered in violation of the law, in circumstances---High Court set aside the impugned s and suit of the respondents stood dismissed---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. JUDGMENT IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE.---- Through the instant writ petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492