| Case ID |
23272007-0a49-483c-b407-d143a9ae8ff7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 191-D of 2001 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 01, 2014 |
| Hearing Date |
Jul 01, 2014 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court determined that the plaintiff, Anwar Ali, was eligible for the grant of proprietary rights under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme as he was not in government service at the time of the original lease grant and had fulfilled all requisite conditions, including payment of dues from 1975 to 1980. The court found no irregularities, jurisdictional defects, or misinterpretations of evidence in the lower court findings. Additionally, the High Court clarified the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that revision is a supervisory mechanism for correcting jurisdictional errors and does not equate to an appellate function. Consequently, the petitioner’s appeal was deemed devoid of merit and was thereby dismissed without ordering any costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Civil Revision No. 191-D of 2001, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on July 1, 2014, the petitioner, Province of Punjab and others, appealed against the respondent, Anwar Ali, concerning the grant of proprietary rights under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme. The crux of the matter revolved around the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) and provisions under the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). Anwar Ali had been allotted agricultural land on lease from 1975 to 1980 and had diligently paid all requisite dues, thereby accruing valuable rights. Despite his compliance, his application for proprietary rights was initially dismissed on grounds of alleged governmental service. However, the High Court meticulously examined the eligibility criteria, confirming that Anwar was not in government service during the lease grant and was thus entitled to the proprietary rights. The court emphasized the distinction between revisional and appellate jurisdictions, highlighting that revision under Section 115 CPC serves as a supervisory tool for rectifying jurisdictional errors rather than overturning factual findings of lower courts. Citing precedents like Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and others and Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Muhammad, the High Court reinforced the limited scope of revisional powers. The comprehensive analysis of evidence, including numerous documents and witness testimonies, led to the dismissal of the revision petition, thereby upholding the rights of the respondent. This case underscores the importance of procedural adherence and the delineation of judicial powers within the framework of property law and civil procedure, serving as a pivotal reference for future litigations involving land rights and revisional petitions in Pakistan's judicial landscape. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
ANWAR ALI,
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND others
|
| Judges |
ZAFARULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Bashir Lakhesir,
Waseem Hassan Raja,
Asad Sher,
Nadeem Iqbal Chaudhry
|
| Petitioners |
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND others
|
| Respondents |
ANWAR ALI
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 2145,
2016 YLR 328
|
| Other Citations |
Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Messrs Swaraj Developers and others AIR 2003 SC 2434,
Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others 2014 SCMR 161,
Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Muhammad 2012 SCMR 730,
Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCMR 431 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
10,
115
|