| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4201 = 2026 SLD 4201 |
Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench
C. R No. 392-A/2026
Presented By: AURANGZEB, J
Present: Haji Muhammad Yaqoob, Advocate, for petitioners.
Respondents are not represented being a motion case. Dates of hearing: 27.07.2026
C. R No. 392-A/2026
Presented By: AURANGZEB, J
Present: Haji Muhammad Yaqoob, Advocate, for petitioners.
Respondents are not represented being a motion case. Dates of hearing: 27.07.2026
-Muhammad Ashrafand others. (Petitioner/s)
VS
Additional Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Haripur and others. (Respondent/s)-
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 9,115,39,53,26
Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)
Section:
Summary The Civil Revision Petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and Additional District Judge, Haripur, whereby the petitioners’ suit for declaration, permanent injunction and consequential relief concerning certain property was dismissed. The record showed that the disputed land was originally part of the Shamilat of Mouza Bareela, but during the 1968-69 consolidation proceedings, the Shamilat land was converted into proprietary ownership and distributed among the co-sharers according to their respective shares. The petitioners’ own witnesses, including Patwaris, documentary revenue record, and the admission of petitioner No.1 established that they were aware of and had participated in the consolidation proceedings. Their objections had also been decided by the competent authority in 1974. The Court further held that the petitioners had previously approached the Revenue Authorities for correction of the disputed Khasra Girdawari, but their application was dismissed and the order was never challenged through the available statutory remedies. Consequently, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred under Section 172 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967, particularly Sections 172(1) and 172(2)(v)-(vi), insofar as the dispute concerned correction of revenue entries. The Court also relied upon Section 9 CPC, Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, and Section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Since the petitioners sought a fresh appreciation of evidence despite concurrent findings of fact, no ground existed for interference under Section 115 CPC, which confers limited revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition was therefore dismissed in limine, and the judgments and decrees of both subordinate Courts were upheld. JUDGMENT AURANGZEB, J.- Through the instant Civil Revision Petition, the petitioners have called in question the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Haripur, whereby the appeal preferred by them was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2023 passed by the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit instituted by the…