Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42, 8 , 54

Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)

Section: 3

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 42, 8 & 54---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.3--Shamilat-Deh---Partition---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration---Scope--Exclusion of certain land from operation of Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act, 1967)--Petitioners claimed their share in the Shamilat-Deh by way of instituting a suit, which was dismissed for want of non-impleadment of necessary and proper parties--Appeal preferred by the petitioners was partially accepted by declaring them cosharer to certain extent and no declaratory decree was passed for the reason that since the subject matter of the suit was Shamilat-Deh, therefore, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit---Validity---Question of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or Revenue Courts established under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act, 1967) in the matter of Shamilat lands depends upon the nature of the property---Disputed property was admittedly recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi in the revenue record, thus, Revenue Courts established under the Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts was only confined to the lands which were used for agricultural or ancillary purposes and assessed for land revenue, which was certainly not the case of the petitioners--Property in dispute being Shamilat land and comprised of Ghair Mumkin Abadi was excluded from the operation of the Act, 1967 in terms of S.3 of the Act, 1967, and as such the same fell within the jurisdiction of Civil Court, albeit, for maintaining suit for declaration in the matters of Shamilat-Deh filed under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the entire proprietary body of the village was required to be impleaded being necessary and proper party, as no effective decree could be passed without their impleadment in the suit---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances, while remitting the matter to the Trial Court with the direction to allow the petitioners to file an application for impleadment of the entire proprietary body of the village being necessary and proper parties in the array of defendants in the suit.

Fayaz and others v. Muhammad Haneef (Civil Revision No. 700-P of 2022); Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousuf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9; Rabnawaz and others v. Akbar Ali and others 1989 SCMR 93; Atta Muhammad v. Sahibzada Manzoor Ahmad and others 1992 SCMR 138; Sher Hassan's case (Civil