Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 3075 2006 SLD 3075 2006 PLD 558
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 140 of 2006, decided on 24th May, 2006, DATE of hearing: 24th May, 2006.
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ
Moohanlal K. Makhijani for Petitioners.

GAHI alias GADA HUSSAIN and others

VS

SHAMAN and 7 others

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art.199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.47 & O.XXIII, R.3---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.42---Constitutional petition---Compromise decree---Execution---Grievance of the petitioners/ decree holders was that they had approached Mukhtiarkar, (Land Revenue) and District Officer (Revenue) for the mutation in the record of rights according to the compromise decree in a suit, but they refused the mutation and therefore, it may be declared that the act of Mukhtiarkar refusing to mutate the entry in the record of rights in the name of petitioner/decree holders in accordance with the compromise decree was illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority and that both the officers be directed to mutate the record in the name of petitioners/decree holders in accordance with the compromise decree---Validity---Held, if the decree stopped short with declaring the rights and obligations of the parties relating to the property forming the basis of the claim sought to be enforced, it was a decree declaratory in nature---Parties, in the present case, in the compromise decree, had settled the terms and conditions of compromise and after specifying the survey number and areas, which was to be held by each party, it had been agreed that after passing of decree the record shall be prepared accordingly and Mukhtiarkar of the District was a party to the compromise decree---When there was a specific condition in the compromise and the compromise decree had been passed in pursuance of the terms and conditions agreed between the parties containing the condition that the record shall be prepared accordingly, it was not a decree declaratory in nature simpliciter and therefore, if Mukhtiarkar being a party to the compromise decree had refused to act according to the compromise, the decree holders ought to have approached Civil Court for the execution of the decree---If there was no dispute about the title of the land, in that case the Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to refuse the mutation in accordance with a decree of Civil Court on the ground that the suit was barred by time or decree had become barred by time or…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492