| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court dated March 17, 1993, in Civil Revision No. 334 of 1987. The Court reviewed the arguments regarding the ownership of the land bearing Khasra No. 3954/2 and the discrepancies in its recording within the settlement and subsequent Jamabandis. It was found that the High Court had not properly appraised the evidence presented, including the claims of erroneous recording of the Khasra number and the inconsistencies in land possession records. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to proceed, ensuring that the petitioner’s rightful ownership claims would be thoroughly examined, thereby upholding the integrity of land records and the petitioner’s property rights. |
| Summary |
In the pivotal case of Subedar ZAR MUHAMMAD vs WALI MUHAMMAD, Civil Petition No. 168 P of 1993, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delved into significant issues surrounding land ownership, record discrepancies, and legal procedural integrity under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) and the Constitution of Pakistan (1973). The dispute originated from the partition and consolidation proceedings of 1958-59, where land measuring 37 Kanals 18 Marlas in Pir Pai vas was divided into several Khasra numbers, including Khasra No. 3954. The petitioner, Subedar ZAR MUHAMMAD, asserted that Khasra No. 3954/2 was rightfully allotted to him during these proceedings and was consistently recorded in multiple Jamabandis as his property. Despite these records, the defendant, WALI MUHAMMAD, appeared in the 1982-83 Jamabandi column of possession as 'Ghair Dakhildar' with the designation 'Bela Ada Legan', creating a contentious claim over the same land parcel.
The petitioner’s legal team, represented by advocate Sh. Wazir Muhammad, contended that the recurring presence of Khasra No. 3954/2 in settlement records and its absence from field maps prepared by Patwari Nadir Khan Patwari Halqa (P.W.1) indicated a clerical error that mislabeled the Khasra number as 3954/4. They emphasized that both Khasra numbers shared identical land measurements of 3 Kanals, further supporting the claim of an inadvertent duplication or misrecording in official documents. The petitioner sought a judicial declaration of ownership, an injunction to prevent unauthorized possession, or alternatively, a grant of possession of the disputed land.
The respondent, WALI MUHAMMAD, contested the petitioner’s claims by asserting the non-existence of Khasra No. 3954/2 in the field records and highlighted its absence in the settlement documentation and subsequent Jamabandis. This defense was aimed at undermining the petitioner’s established ownership and questioning the validity of the land records that supported the petitioner’s case.
At the trial level, the learned judge dismissed the petitioner’s suit based on the contention that Khasra No. 3954/2 did not exist on the spot, leading to the dismissal of both the petitioner’s appeal and revision by the District Judge and the High Court, respectively. Dissatisfied with these outcomes, the petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's appraisal of the evidence and the subsequent judgments.
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, identified critical shortcomings in the High Court’s evaluation of the evidence. It was noted that the High Court failed to adequately consider the persistent recording of Khasra No. 3954/2 in multiple Jamabandis versus its sudden absence in the 1982-83 records. Moreover, the potential clerical error in mislabeling the Khasra number warranted a thorough re-examination of the land records and the authenticity of the documented ownership.
By granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court opened the pathway for a more comprehensive judicial review, ensuring that the petitioner’s claims of rightful ownership were given due consideration. This decision underscored the importance of meticulous record-keeping and the judiciary’s role in rectifying administrative oversights to uphold property rights and legal integrity.
This case highlights the challenges inherent in land disputes, especially those involving historical records and administrative documentation. It emphasizes the necessity for accurate land records and the critical examination of evidence in resolving ownership conflicts. The Supreme Court's intervention serves as a crucial mechanism for ensuring justice and fairness in property-related litigations, reinforcing the principles of due process and equitable resolution in Pakistani civil law.
Keywords: Supreme Court Pakistan, land revenue act, land ownership dispute, Khasra number, Jamabandi discrepancies, legal appeal, property rights, land record integrity, Pakistani civil law, Supreme Court decision 1994, land partition proceedings, legal documentation error, judicial review land dispute, Peshawar High Court appeal, property law Pakistan, land settlement records. |