Law: Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 172(2)(viii)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 9

(a)    Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S.172(2)(viii)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Dispute regarding ownership of property leased out for installation of a cell phone Tower---Allegation of fraud---Factual/disputed questions qua title, resolution of---Plenary jurisdiction of Civil Court---Scope---Civil Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction and disputed question of facts and law regarding the title of the disputed property cannot be decided by the revenue authorities, proceedings before whom are summary in nature---In such like cases, the parties ought to approach the Civil Courts---Order passed by Assistant Commissioner was not sustainable in the eye of the law, having been passed in utter violation of the mandatory provision of the Revenue Act and the same was set aside---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.Jan Muhammad through Mubarik Ali and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2004 SCMR 612; Muhammad Jameel Asghar v. The Improvement Trust Rawalpindi PLD 1965 SC 698 and Hafiz Kalu and others v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others 2019 YLR 1523 rel.(b)    Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)-------S.172(2)(viii)---'Question of title'---Meaning and scope---Question of title is the claim of a person as to his ownership in some property and it will arise when someone denies his right or interest in his property.Date of hearing: 5th October, 2023.JUDGMENTROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.----Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:"A) In view of the above facts and grounds, the petitioner respectfully prayed that the impugned order 15.06.2023 may kindly be set aside and be declared the same nul and void, and the till disposal of petition order impugned may kindly be suspended, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay.B) Any other relief deem fit and appropriate in the interest of petitioner by this Honourable Court.."2.    Brief facts of the case are that Ufone (Mobile Company) desires to install a tower/system of Communication at the ownership land of the petitioner, due to which a Lease Agreement was executed between Ufone Company…