| Decision |
The Lahore High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the petition filed by Allah Dad and decreeing in favor of the respondents, Lal Khan and another. The court affirmed that the petitioner had encroached upon the respondents' land, a conclusion supported by the Revenue Officer's demarcation report and the Local Commissioner's site-plan. The trial court's findings against the petitioner were based on unrebutted evidence, which the appellate court rightfully upheld. Consequently, the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to dismiss the revision petition, ensuring that concurrent factual findings by the lower courts were respected and not subject to interference without substantial grounds. |
| Summary |
In the significant case of Civil Revisions Petitions Nos.392 and 393 of 1997, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on August 6, 2002, the legal dispute centered around land ownership and alleged encroachment between Allah Dad (the petitioner) and Lal Khan along with another respondent. The petitioner had sought a declaration and permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act of 1877, specifically invoking Sections 42 and 54, to assert his ownership and prevent the respondents from encroaching upon his property. Both parties had acquired lands separately from a joint Khata, with the respondents purchasing their land prior to Allah Dad. The crux of the matter was that Allah Dad allegedly encroached upon the land legally owned by the respondents.
The Revenue Officer conducted a demarcation of the disputed lands, and the Local Commissioner validated this report through a site-plan, which indicated that the petitioner had indeed encroached upon the respondents' property. Based on this evidence, the trial court dismissed Allah Dad's suit and decreed in favor of the respondents. Allah Dad appealed this decision, but the appellate district judge upheld the lower court's judgment on January 7, 1997. Dissatisfied, Allah Dad filed revision petitions with the Lahore High Court.
During the proceedings, both parties presented their evidence. Allah Dad was represented by Muhammad Hussain Awan, while Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai represented the respondents. The petitioner contended that the findings related to various issues, including ownership and cause of action, were unsustainable and based on misinterpretations of evidence. He argued that mutation records indicated joint ownership and questioned the validity of the demarcation process carried out by the Revenue Authorities and the Local Commissioner.
Conversely, the respondents maintained that the land titles were clear and that the demarcation had been conducted lawfully, thereby substantiating their claims of encroachment by the petitioner. They emphasized that the sale-deeds were registered and that the properties had been clearly demarcated, leaving no room for ambiguity regarding ownership and boundaries.
The Lahore High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence, including sale-deeds, mutation records, witness testimonies, and official reports. The court concluded that the trial and appellate courts had correctly interpreted the evidence and applied the law appropriately. The petitioner had failed to provide sufficient grounds to challenge the lower courts' findings. The High Court upheld that the concurrent factual findings against Allah Dad, based on unrebutted and credible evidence, were valid and should not be interfered with under its revisional jurisdiction as stipulated in section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
This judgment underscores the importance of clear documentation and adherence to legal procedures in property disputes. It also reaffirms the authority of revenue and local commissioners in land demarcation processes and the weight such official reports carry in court deliberations. For legal practitioners and individuals involved in property law, this case serves as a precedent highlighting the necessity of robust evidence and the limited scope of revisional powers when lower courts have rightly established factual conclusions.
Trending keywords: Lahore High Court land dispute, encroachment case 2003, Specific Relief Act Section 42, property law Pakistan, land ownership litigation, civil revision petition, estate demarcation court case, High Court revisional jurisdiction C.P.C section 115, property boundary dispute, Punjab land law judgment, revenue officer land dispute resolution, Local Commissioner site-plan validity, civil appellate court decision, mutual land purchase conflict |