2024 M L D 1937
[Balochistan]
Before Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J
LATIF and others ---Petitioners
Versus
ABDUL NABI and others ---Respondents
Civil Revisions Nos. 732 and 733 of 2022, decided on 30th August, 2024.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---
----Ss.42, 8 & 54--- Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.172(2)(xviii) ---Suit for
declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Question of title of property---
Jurisdiction of Civil Court ---Scope ---Plaintiff sought a declaration in the suit that he was
owner of suit property which had been taken over by the respondents ---Suit was dismissed
on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the matters fell within the jurisdiction of Revenue court ---Validity ---S.172(2)(i) of the Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1969, (Act)
empowers the Revenue Officer to resolve the issues in exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, pertaining to the limits of a land, claim of a partition or any other question connected with or arising out of the proceedings of the partition, but S.172(xviii)(2) of the
Act clearly excludes the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities, where question of title is involved---Parties were contravening and repelling the stances of one and the other, which obviously could not be decided without appraisal of the evidence, thus, the Revenue Court was not competent to resolve such factual controversy and the r ight forum for determination of the factual controversy was only the Court of civil jurisdiction--- Civil revisions were
allowed, in circumstances.
Abdul Hakeem Zareen for the Petitioner (in Civil Revision No. 732 of 2022).
Abdul Baseer Kakar for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in Civil Revision No. 732 of 2022).
Muhammad Ayub Tareen, A.A.G. for the State (in Civil Revision No. 732 of 2022).
Abdul Hakeem Zareen for the Petitioner (in Civil Revision No. 733 of 2022).
Abdul Baseer Kakar for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in Civil Revision No. 733 of 2022).
Muhammad Ayub Tareen, A.A.G. for the State (in Civil Revision No. 733 of 2022).
Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2024.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .---The petitioners seek annulment of the judgment
and decree dated 23.07.2022 ("impugned judgment and decree") penned by learned Civil Judge -VI, Quetta ("Trial Court") as well as judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022
("impugned judgment and decree") drawn by Additional District Judge -IX, Quetta
("Appellate Court"), having been rendered in a Civil Suits bearing Nos.49 of 2022 and 50 of 2022 respectively, filed by petitioners for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction, which culminated into dismissal of the their suits.
2. As identical question of facts and law are involved in the captioned petitions,
therefore, these petitions are being disposed of through this consolidated judgment.
3. Unfurled facts of the case are the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, possession,
and permanent injunction in respect of property mentioned in para No.2 of their plaint, which was contested by private respondents namely Abdul Nabi, Abdul Sattar and Abdul Razzaq,
which led the Trial Court to frame issues, leading the adversial parties to adduce their
evidence. On conclusion, the Trial Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.07.2022 dismissed the suits filed by the petitioners, which was assailed in appeal before the Appellate Court, culminating into dismissal of the appeals vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022.
4. Heard. Record perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the adversial
parties. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the property mentioned in para No.2 of their plaint from respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the year 2016, which was got mutated in their names vide mutation entry No.596, the possession whereof was also handed over to them, however, subsequently respondent Nos. 1 to 3, illegally occupied their property by dumping construction material thereon, and continued the possession till date, whereas on the other hand, respondents Nos.1 to 3, while admitting the sale transaction and mutation of the property in question, urged that the petitioners in the garb of the said sale transaction intends to occupy the frontal portion of their property, which is a joint property of respondents Nos.1 to 3 and other siblings.
5. The Trial Court, in order to resolve the controversy between the parties framed issues,
whereafter the parties led their evidence, however, on conclusion, the Trial Court instead of deciding the suit on the basis of evidence, directed the petitioners to approach the proper forum for demarcation, and that if Competent Authorities failed to do so, they may knock the door of the Civil Court, which judgment and decree was assailed in an appeal, but was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.2022
6. There is no cavil to the preposition that under section 172 of the Balochistan Land
Revenue Act, 1967 ("Act of 1967"), the Revenue Officer has been empowered to dispose of and take cognizance of the matter mentioned in clause (2) of section 172 of Act of 1967, which for ease of reference is reproduced herein below;
"172.Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of
Revenue Officers. (1) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, no Civil Court shall
have jurisdiction in any matter which Government, the Board of Revenue, or any Revenue Officer, empowered by this Act to dispose of, or take cognizance of the manner in which Government, the Board of Revenue, or any Revenue Officer exercise any powers vested in it for him by or under this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub- section (1), a Civil
Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely:
(i) any question as to the limits of any land which has been defined by a Revenue Officer as land to which this Act does or does not apply;
(ii) any claim to compel the discharge of any duties imposed by this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force on any Revenue Officer as such;
(iii) any claim to the Office of a village officer or in respect of any injury caused by exclusion from such office, or to compel the discharge of the duties or a division of the emoluments thereof;
(iv) any notification directing the making or revision of a record- of-rights;
(v) the farming of a record -of-rights or periodical record, or the preparation, signing
or attestation of any of the documents included in such a record;
(vi) the correction of any entry in a record- of-rights, periodical record or register of
mutations;
(vii) any notification of the undertaking of general reassessment of a District or Tehsil having been sanctioned by Government;
(viii) any objection to the amount or rate of any assessment of land revenue to the period thereof authorised by Government;
(ix) the claim of any person to be liable for an assessment of land revenue or of any other revenue as assessed under this Act;
(x) the amount of land revenue to be assessed on any estate or to be paid in respect of any holding under this Act;
(xi) the amount of, or the liability of any person to pay, any other revenue to be
assessed under this Act or any cess charge or rate to be assessed on an estate or holding under this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force.
xii) any claim relating to the allowance to be received by a land- owner who has given
notice of his refusal to be liable for an assessment, or any claim connected with, or arising out of, any proceedings taken in consequence of the refusal of any person to be liable for an assessment under this Act;
(xiii) the formation of an estate or determination of its boundaries;
(xiv) any claim to hold free of revenue any land, mills fisheries or natural products of land or water;
(xv) any claim connected with, or arising out of the collection by Government, or the enforcement by Government of any process for the recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue;
(xvi) any claim to set aside, on any ground other than fraud, a sale for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue;
(xvii) the amount of, or the liability of any person to pay, any cess, fees, fines, costs
or other charge imposed under this Act;
(xviii) any claim for partition of an estate or holding, or any question connected with
or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought;
(xix) any question as to the allotment of land on the partition of an estate or holding,
or as to the distribution of lands subject by established custom to periodical re -
distribution or as to the distribution of land revenue on the partition of an estate or
holding or on a periodical re -distribution of land;
(xx) any question connected with or arising out of or relating to any proceedings for
the determination of boundaries of estates subject to river action under the provision
of this Act;
(xxi) any claim regarding boundaries fixed under any of the enactments hereby
repealed or any other law for the time being in force, or to set aside any order passed by a competent officer under any such law with regard to boundary marks."
7. Section 172 clause (2) (i) of the Act of 1967 empowers the Revenue Officer to resolve
the issues in exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, pertaining to the limits of a land, claim of a partition or any other question connected with or arising out of the proceedings of the partition, but sub- clause (xviii) of clause (2) of section 172 of the Act of 1967 clearly
excludes the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities, where question of title is involved.
8. In the instant matter, since both the parties are contravening and repelling the stances
of one and the other, which obviously cannot be decided without appraisal of the evidence, therefore, I am of the considered view that the Revenue Court is not competent to resolve such factual controversy, henceforth, the right forum for determination of the factual controversy lies only with the court of civil jurisdiction.
9. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have misinterpreted the provisions ibid
and misconstrued by holding that the issue in hand exclusively falls within the domain of revenue hierarchy, thus, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are not sustainable, being mis -exercise of jurisdiction, which cannot be allowed to
hold field, thus it requires to be set at naught.
10. Corollary, the captioned petitions are allowed, and the impugned judgments and
decrees dated 23.07.2022 and 31.10.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge -VI, Quetta and
learned Additional District Judge -IX, Quetta respectively are set aside, and the case is
remanded back to the Trial Court for decision on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the adversarial parties.
The parties shall bear the cost of the lis on their own.
SA/79/Bal. Petitions allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.