| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3495 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.70734 of 2023
Presented By: (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge
Date of hearing: 03.06.2026. Petitioners by: Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Ch., Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Muhammad Saad Bin Ghazi, Assistant Advocate General. Mr. Najaf Muzzamal Khan, Advocate (for respondents No.3 to 7).
Civil Revision No.70734 of 2023
Presented By: (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge
Date of hearing: 03.06.2026. Petitioners by: Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Ch., Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Muhammad Saad Bin Ghazi, Assistant Advocate General. Mr. Najaf Muzzamal Khan, Advocate (for respondents No.3 to 7).
Mushtaq Hussain Shah (deceased) through Legal Heirs
VERSUS
The Province of Punjab through District Collector, Sialkot & others
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 115
Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967
Section: 161, 172
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section:
Summary The petitioners challenged the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissing their suit for declaration and permanent injunction. They claimed ownership through Mutation No.335, sanctioned pursuant to a compromise decree in a pre-emption suit. The Assistant Commissioner later cancelled the mutation, and instead of filing an appeal under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, the petitioners directly filed a civil suit. The High Court held that the petitioners ordinarily ought to have exhausted the statutory remedies available under the Land Revenue Act. However, the Courts below failed to decide two crucial questions: (i) whether the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel a mutation based on a civil court decree; and (ii) whether the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner were barred by limitation. Since these material issues remained undecided, the High Court partly allowed the revision, set aside the concurrent judgments to that limited extent, and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh determination of these issues. Tagline Revenue authorities cannot ignore jurisdictional and limitation issues while cancelling a mutation sanctioned pursuant to a civil court decree; such material questions must be judicially determined before dismissing the suit. ORDER; MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.- Through the instant civil revision petition, the petitioners have called in question the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 24.09.2022 and 28.04.2023 passed respectively by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction as well as the appeal arising therefrom were dismissed. The principal ground on which the suit was held to be not maintainable was that the petitioners had directly invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court to challenge the order dated 07.03.1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner cancelling Mutation No.335, without first availing the statutory remedies provided under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Briefly stated, the petitioners claim to have acquired rights in the suit property…