West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

  1. —section 42(6) —attestation of mutation— requirement—in such proceedings— common assembly of the village—not at Tehsildar’s office—non-compliance of section—supports the version of the plaintiffs that they did have knowledge—the assertion on the point of limitation finds support from another angle. According to the provision of sub-section 6 of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, such like mutation proceeding has to be conducted in the common assembly of the village to which the Estate relates. Abdul Hameed v. Mst Para  Begum & others 2017 SCR 269 (B)
  2. — section 42 (8) — attestation of mutation — requirement of — the attestation of mutation proceedings has to be conducted by the Revenue Officer, in the common assembly of the village to which the Estate relates. Fazal Dad Khan v. Khalil Khan & others 2023 SCR 210 (A) 2017 SCR 269 & 2007 YLR 1770 ref.
  3. Section 53 — specific relief Act, 1877 — declaratory suits — entries in revenue record — new cause of action — Under the provision of section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, any person who considers himself aggrieved by an entry in the revenue record, he is entitled to institute a suit for declaration of his rights under chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Raja Asmatullah Khan v. Qudratullah & another 2014 SCR 1537 (C)
  4. Sections 53 — declaration and correction of revenue record — suit dismissed u/s 172 on ground of jurisdiction — According to the nature of this suit, the statutory provisions of section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, are attracted which speak that a party aggrieved from the entries in the revenue record can file declaratory suit. Maqsood Kausar v. Revenue Dept. & others 2015 SCR 929 (B) Nazar  Muhammad  v.  Khurshid  Ahmed & others (Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2009 decided on 02.12.2011) rel.
  5. Sections 53 and 172 — declaration in respect of adverse entries competent — jurisdiction of civil court barred u/s 172 in certain enumerated matters — a perusal of section leaves no doubt that if any person is aggrieved by an entry in the revenue record, which is adverse to his rights, he may file declaratory suit under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Under Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in certain matters which are specifically enumerated therein. The filing of civil suit is specifically covered by Section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. A combined reading of Section 53 and Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, shows that the suits for declaration in respect of adverse entries in the revenue record can competently be filed by an aggrieved person in a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. Maqsood Kausar v. Revenue Dept. 2015 SCR  929 (C)  2000 SCR 211  rel.
  6. Section 53 — civil suit — Declaration — Transaction without share in Shamilat deh — suit competent —In the impugned judgment, the High Court has also opined that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Khalsa Waste Land and Shamilat De Act, 1966 — The opinion of the High Court is not consistent with the statutory provisions as well as the principle of aw enunciated in this regard. According to the averments made in the pleadings, the controversy, giving rise to the cause of action in this suit is the disputed entries in the revenue record. The first appellate Court has rightly observed that under section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 in such situation, the civil suit is competent. The proposition in this case was not that the plaintiff has approached the civil Court for determination of his right in the Shamilat deh land; or determination of title; or partition of shamilat deh land, rather he has approached the Court seeking declaration that the land transferred trough mutation No. 53 and 66 was without share in the Shamilat deh land for declaration there is no bar for maintaining a civil suit. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mohammad Ishaque & 7 others 2016 SCR 921 (C)
  7.  S. 135 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss.42(12) & 44 — Partition of land — Writ petition before High Court — Scope — Parties were co-sharers in the land in dispute, and if one party claimed that the land in possession of other party was in excess of its marginal share, then it was enjoined upon the Revenue Assistant to order for partition of the land according to the shares — Co-sharer had right to apply for partition of the land, and get the land partitioned, and entered in the revenue record in separate khewat and khata number — Orders passed by Revenue Authorities and the judgment of High Court in that respect, were perfectly legal — If the findings recorded by the lower Tribunals were based on no evidence, or were against the record, then High Court could interfere with the findings of the lower Tribunals under extraordinary jurisdiction vested in it under S.44 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — In the present case the findings recorded by the lower Tribunals were based on the record — High Court was justified in dismissing writ petition — Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Muzaffar Hussain Khan & 9 others v. Board of Revenue through Member Muzaffarabad and 26 others 2012 SCR 415 (B)
  8. Chap. XI [Ss. 135 to 150] — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 — Specific Relief Act(1 of 1877), S.42 — Suit for declaration — Partition of land — Plaintiffs had challenged the order of Revenue Assistant on the ground that partition-deed in respect of suit land was contrary to the partition order passed by Revenue Assistant and that partition-deed issued by Revenue Assistant was without hearing the plaintiffs, without notice, against law, mala fide and in violation of the provisions of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 — Jurisdiction of civil Court — Scope — Section 9, C.P.C. had conferred jurisdiction upon the civil Court to hear, determine and  adjudicate a cause by exercising their judicial power and authority — Civil Court is granted general jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature, unless their cognizance was specifically or impliedly barred — For the purpose of determining the question of jurisdiction, the recitals in the plaint had to be considered and the question be decided on the basis of facts alleged in the plaint —- Section 9, C.P.C. had conferred wide powers in the civil Court to determine whether court of special jurisdiction had acted in accordance with law; and limits imposed upon it by law — When the jurisdiction of civil court was expressly barred and conferred upon special tribunal, civil court being courts of ultimate jurisdiction had the jurisdiction to examine the acts of such forum, whether those were in accordance with law; within sphere allotted to it by such law; illegal, mala fide or contrary to principles of natural justice — Civil court could determine whether a judgment was obtained on the basis of fraud and a functionary had exceeded its jurisdiction; and its order was nullity in the eyes of law — Where the statutory provision had not been complied with, the civil court could set aside such judgment — Under Chapter XI of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, Revenue Courts had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question relating to the partition of land; and the civil court could not question the correctness of the decision of the Revenue Court based on law and valid exercise of jurisdiction; in that case the jurisdiction of the civil court was ousted, but if the decision was in violation of law, procedure, mala fide, based on fraud, against the statutory provisions in violations of principles of natural justice, the civil court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the same — Had the plaintiffs challenged the correctness of the partition-deed without alleging said facts of mala fide etc., then S.172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, should have come in operation; and in that case civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit — Plaintiffs had challenged the decision of the Revenue Authorities on the grounds which attracted the jurisdiction of the civil court; no ouster clause was attracted — Civil court, in circumstances, had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Mst. Zameer Begum and 2 others v. Shakeela Begum and 7 others 2012 SCR 29 Mustafa Khan and 3 others v. Muhammad Khan and another PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 75 distinguished. Military Estate Officer and another v. Syed Qamoos Shah and 20 others PLD 2004 SC (AJ&K) 40; Syed Shah v. Khuda Bakhsh known as Maulvi Shah and others PLD 1954 Lah. 606; Zafar-ul-Ahsan v. The Republic of Pakistan (through Cabinet Secretary, Government of Pakistan) PLD 1960 SC 113 and Abdul Rauf and others v. Abdul hamid Khan and others PLD 1965 SC 671 rel.
  9. S. 141[as applicable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir] — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974(VIII of 1974), S.42 — Partition of joint holding of plaintiffs and defendants by Revenue Authorities  was challenged by plaintiffs — Plaintiffs suit was decreed by two Courts below — High Court while setting aside judgments and decrees of Courts below had rightly maintained that trial Court and First Appellate Court were not correct to proceed on premises that only joint land owned by parties in one village was partitioned — High Court on basis of record had rightly concluded that land was rightly partitioned according to fractional share of parties in their joint holdings in both villages — Revenue Authorities can give exclusive ownership to a co-sharer by partition even if he was not previously in possession of same — Plaintiff’s claim that they were given less share than their entitlement was belied by the record — Mere possession in pursuance of private arrangement does not deprive other co-sharer of his right to seek regular partition from Revenue Authorities — Order of partition having been passed before death of predecessor-in-interest of appellants, it was not necessary to implead his legal representatives in partition proceedings, especially so when they kept mum and did not challenge partition proceedings before Appellate Revenue Authorities on ground of their non-impleadment before Revenue Authorities — Judgment of High Court was maintained in circumstances. Muhammad Khalid and 3 others v. Muhammad Akram and 10 others 2000 SCR 412 (B, C & D) PLD 1962 Pesh 14; AIR 1960 Patna 420; AIR 1936 Cal.22; AIR 1953Pepsu 415; PLD 1950 Revenue 1161.
  10. S. 141 shows that if a question of title arises in the property to be devided, the Revenue Officer may himself determine the question of title or refer the matter to a civil Court for its determination. Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. Board of Revenue and 12 others 2001 SCR 324 (A)
  11. S. 147 — Family partition — Effect of — Under law family partition is subject to confirmation under section 147 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Muhammad Afsar & 10 others v. Sultan Muhammad and 7 others 2006 SCR 8 (A)
  12. S. 164 — Gives wider powers to the Board of Revenue for exercising its revisional jurisdiction — Second review petition is not visualised under the provisions of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. Muhammad Yousaf Khan  v. Board of Revenue and 12 others 2001 SCR 324 (C)
  13. — Section 164 — revisional powers Board of Revenue — u/s 164 the revisional powers are also available to the Board of Revenue as well as Commissioner — the Board of Revenue, may, at any time, on its own motion, or an application make to it within 90 days of passing of any order, call for record of any case pending before or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer subordinate to it. Munawar Hussain v. Abdullah & another 2017 SCR 1512 (B)
  14. S. 164(1) & (2) — The revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Board of Revenue under this provision is not subject to restriction — Powers of the Board of Revenue are very vast and cannot be curtailed — In cases where Board of Revenue is satisfied that some illegality or irregularity has been committed in passing any order by the subordinate authorities, it shall have jurisdiction to entertain the second revision petition. M. Iqbal Khan  v. Board of Revenue 2001 SCR 561 (A)  
error: Content is protected !!