| Case ID |
0be7067d-5267-46bf-b92a-a5576e81000c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 02-A of 2014 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 10, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 10, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, under the guidance of Justice Shakeel Ahmad, overturned the lower courts' rulings that had previously dismissed the petitioners' case regarding the designation of land as a graveyard. The court determined that the sale or purchase of the land through mutation or registered deed was illegal, lacking lawful authority and jurisdiction. Consequently, it directed revenue officials to rectify the revenue records to reflect the rightful status of the land. Moreover, the court mandated the removal and demolition of any unauthorized constructions on the graveyard, ensuring its continued use exclusively for the burial of Muslims in the locality. This revision underscores the legal protections surrounding designated graveyards and invalidates any prior transactions that contravene these protections. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision of Civil Revision No. 02-A of 2014, decided on September 10, 2020, the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, presided by Justice Shakeel Ahmad, addressed a critical dispute involving property law and graveyard designation under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The case involved the petitioners, Haji Mohammad Riaz and others, who contested the ownership and usage of a 16 marla land parcel, Khasra No.1406, located in Qasba Abbottabad. The respondents, including Khalid Mehmood Abbasi and others, held ownership claims through various mutations and registered deeds. However, the petitioners argued that the land served as a graveyard for the Muslim community since 1934, and any sale or acquisition of the land was unlawful, lacking proper authority and jurisdiction.
The High Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, particularly Sections 42 and 54, to determine the validity of the property transactions and the rightful designation of the land as a graveyard. The court considered pivotal factors such as the long-standing use of the land for religious purposes, continuous burial activities without any objections from the owners, and the implications of mutation records that conflicted with the established usage of the land. Drawing on precedents from cases like Ulfat Butt v. Muhammad Arif and others (2000 YLR 2753) and Sheo Raj Chamar and another v. Mudeer Khan and others (AIR 1934 Allahabad 868 rel.), the court emphasized the necessity of proving the land’s dedication to public or private burial ground status through extensive evidence of its use over time.
Justice Shakeel Ahmad concluded that the sale or purchase of the land through mutation or registered deeds was illegal and void, directing revenue officials to rectify the discrepancies in the revenue records. The court also ordered the demolition of unauthorized constructions within the graveyard, reinforcing the sanctity and exclusive use of the burial grounds for Muslim inhabitants of the locality. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to legal protocols in property transactions and maintaining the sanctity of religious sites, setting a significant precedent in property and religious law.
This case underscores the intricate balance between property rights and religious usage, demonstrating the judiciary’s role in upholding community sanctity and legal integrity. By invalidating unauthorized transactions and reinforcing the rightful designation of the graveyard, the court ensured the protection of communal religious practices and prevented unlawful encroachments. The ruling serves as a vital reference for future cases involving property disputes, religious site protections, and the application of the Specific Relief Act in similar contexts. The Peshawar High Court's authoritative stance not only resolved the immediate dispute but also contributed to the broader discourse on property law and religious rights, ensuring that legal remedies are effectively employed to preserve community values and legal standards.
Furthermore, the court's decision to mandate the rectification of revenue records highlights the critical role of accurate and lawful documentation in property ownership and usage. The emphasis on demolishing unauthorized structures serves as a deterrent against future violations and reinforces the legal repercussions of disregarding established property laws. By upholding the principles of the Specific Relief Act, the court reinforced the legal framework that governs property disputes, ensuring that justice is served in accordance with both statutory provisions and community welfare.
The inclusion of Islamic principles and Hadiths in the judgment underscores the integration of religious values within the legal system, promoting a harmonious relationship between faith and law. This holistic approach not only addresses the legal aspects of the case but also respects and upholds the cultural and religious sentiments of the community involved. The court's recognition of the graveyard's longstanding use for religious purposes as a determining factor in its public designation sets a clear precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the importance of continuous and uncontested usage in establishing property rights.
In conclusion, the Peshawar High Court's decision in Civil Revision No. 02-A of 2014 serves as a pivotal reference in property and religious law, reinforcing the necessity of lawful transactions, accurate revenue records, and the protection of communal religious sites. The judgment exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal integrity, community welfare, and religious sanctity, ensuring that justice is not only served but also aligns with the broader values and needs of the society it serves. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench
|
| Entities Involved |
Qasba Abbottabad,
Khasra No.1406,
Mutation,
Revenue Records
|
| Judges |
SHAKEEL AHMAD, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Ayub Awan,
Sajjad Ahmad Abbasi
|
| Petitioners |
HAJI MOHAMMAD RIAZ AND ANOTHERS
|
| Respondents |
KHALID MEHMOOD ABBASI AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 242,
2021 CLC 408
|
| Other Citations |
Ulfat Butt v. Muhammad Arif and others 2000 YLR 2753,
Sheo Raj Chamar and another v. Mudeer Khan and others AIR 1934 Allahabad 868 rel.,
Pir Bux v. Sher Muhammad (1969 All LJ 169)
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
42,
54
|