Law: Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965

Section: 10

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 42

Law: Federal Public Service Commission (Validation of Rules,) Act, 2021

Section: 11,VII Rule 11 (11)

REMARKS

Ordinance of 1965 (Central Government Land and Building (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965) & Act of 1977 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (removal of encroachment of Public Property Act of 1977).
The application of the petitioners/defendants is mainly based upon the provision of the Ordinance of 1965 and the grounds taken therein manifests that non-disclosure of cause of action improper valuation and affixation of the court fee have not been alleged in the application; thus, the application of the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 (1) (a) (b) and (c) could not be invoked. Even otherwise, the contents of the plaint do disclose a cause of action and when the contents of the plaint were controverted through written statements on different legal and factual objections then the trial court has got ultimate jurisdiction to decide the fate of the suit. In so far as the bar of the suit under the Ordinance of 1965 is concerned, suffice it to say that the plaintiffs have made reliance on the entries of the revenue papers and have sought declaration that to the extent of their owned and possessed property and in such an eventuality, civil court of ultimate jurisdiction could try the suit and no such specific bar has been provided in the Ordinance of 1965. It is worth mentioning that the Ordinance of 1965 was repealed in 2021 by Federal Properties, Public Properties; Removal of Encroachment Ordinance, 2021 was promulgated providing a forum for determination of unauthorized possession but even within the lifetime of the Ordinance of 2021 no Tribunal was constituted for determination thereof. Neither the Ordinance of 2021 through its extension holds the field nor it converted into enactment and after the expiry of 120 days as extended later, it has come to an end and when so, the Ordinance of 1965 has been revived but alarmingly the Ordinance of 1965 provides no forum for determination of the issue of unauthorized person. It is not understandable that in the Ordinance of 1965 on one hand the jurisdiction of civil court was barred but on the other hand, in the Ordinance, there is no provision to address the issue of alleged unauthorized occupation.

Summary:Two-word description:
Ownership Dispute
This case involves multiple connected writ petitions filed by the Military Estates Officer, Peshawar Cantt, against private landowners. The dispute centers on alleged encroachment upon public land based on demarcation reports. The landowners claimed ownership of specific Khasra numbers and challenged notices issued under the Central Government Land and Building (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965. The petitioners sought rejection of the civil suits under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to Section 10 of the Ordinance. The court held that ownership determination lies with the civil court, the plaints disclosed a cause of action, and the bar under the 1965 Ordinance was inapplicable in this context. The writ petitions were dismissed.