The laws in respect of rights in Shamlat are that every land owner in a Deh is entitled to rights in the Shamlat land according to ownership and same does not remain fixed forever. If a person is owner of some land, his share in Shamlat will be according to his ownership and subsequently if he cases to be the owner of the land in Deh or he becomes owner of more land, his share in Shamlat stands reduced or increased. Azad Govt. v. Riaz Ahmed & another 2007 SCR 468 (G)
It is only the Revenue Officer concerned who can determine the share in the Shamlat of a particular village or Deh according to holding of a particular owner in that village. Azad Government and 3 others v. Riaz Ahmed & another 2007 SCR 468 (H)
A person who has a share in shamlat can competently transfer the same and that can be used for any purpose in similar manner as a property — It does not debar a person from obtaining the sanction for the legal use of the land which is otherwise being used without sanction. Sardar Nazir Ahmed Khan v. Chairman Azad Kashmir Transport Authority & 5 others 2007 SCR 392 (C)
Occurrence took place in Shamlat land — Both parties alleged the land to be in their possession —Shamlat is otherwise supposed to be in possession of the people of village who own the land in village. Muhammad Afzal & 2 others v. Barkat Ali & another 2008 SCR 151 (A)
Shamlat Deh land cannot be alienated trough affidavit, agreement-to-sell or through a compromise decree nor can a declaration be made in respect of an owner for share in Shamlat Deh by civil Court. Khalid Hussain & 3 others v. Haji Muhammad Rafique and another 2008 SCR 207 (D)
Although gift-deed is a registered document, still the same cannot create a right unless shamlat deh land is partitioned by metes and bounds and a specific certificate by Collector is not granted. Khalid Hussain & 3 others v. Muhammad Najeeb 2008 SCR 223 (B)
The point as to whether a civil suit could be filed to create a title in shamlat deh land and that as to whether the civil Court could entertain a suit for declaration in respect of shamlat deh has neither been considered by High Court nor trial Court — Case remanded to trial Court to decide on merits. Khalid Hussain & 3 others v. Muhammad Najeeb 2008 SCR 223 (C)
Suit land is shamlat deh — About which the civil Courts have limited jurisdiction and admittedly cannot grant permanent injunction against the share holders — Unless the shamlat deh land is partitioned by metes and bounds by revenue authorities no specific share can be declared to be in possession of any land owner — While modifying the judgment. Held: That the judgment recorded by trial Court shall be inter-party and not enforceable against other share holders in shamlat nor shall the same be binding on the revenue authorities who shall have jurisdiction to workout the share in shamlat according to the holding of land owners in village or estate. Barkat Ali & another v. Sultan Mehmood & 18 others 2009 SCR 158 (C)
The decree of ownership regarding the Shamilat land on the basis of the agreement of a private person on cognovits cannot be granted. Raja Asmatullah Khan v. Qudratullah & another 2014 SCR 1537 (D) 2008 SCR 207 rel.
Decree — judgment debtor owner in the village — held: no title or ownership shall be conferred through such decree — decree holder entitled to retain possession — subject to the legal partition of shamilat land — decree shall only be treated final against judgment debtor and respondent. Raja Asmatullah Khan v. Qudratullah & another 2014 SCR 1537 (E)
Under the relevant law, declatory decrees for ownership in respect of shamilat deh land cannot be passed by a civil Court. M. Tufail v. M. Idress& others. 2015 SCR 672 (C) PLJ 2008 SC (AJ&K) 18 rel.
By filing cognovits, consent decree was passed, which is a collusive decree which cannot be passed in respect of shamilat deh land. M. Tufail v. Muhammad Idress& others 2015 SCR 672 (D)
An owner in the village is a sharer in the whole shamilat deh land and on a suit for possession against a stranger a decree for specific performance can be passed. M. Tufail v. M. Idress & others 2015 SCR 672 (E)
An owner in the village cannot claim exclusive ownership of a particular area of shamilat deh land — The possession of one land owner is the possession of the whole proprietary body — such possession is always subject to partition. Development Authority MZD. V. Abdul Latif Abbasi & others 2016 SCR 790 (B) 2013 SCR 185 rel.
Acquisition of shamilat deh land — compensation — entitlement of — an owner can claim compensation of undivided shamilat deh land to the extent of his share — No Court has power to order for payment of compensation of shamilat deh land to a particular person who is in possession. Development Authority MZD. v. Abdul Latif Abbasi & others 2016 SCR 790 (C)
An owner in the shamilat deh land is entitled for compensation according to his proportionate share. Development Authority MZD. v. Abdul Latif Abbasi & others 2016 SCR 790 (D)
Declaratory suit — adverse possession —shamilat deh land —appellants never claimed that they are owners in the village and are in possession of the land as sharers — it is claimed that adverse possession has matured into ownership and appellants have obtained decree on the basis of adverse possession while filing suit against two of the owners in the village —said owners have no more share in the shamilat deh land — whole proprietary body is necessary party — Held: without filing suit against whole village proprietary body, the decree on the basis of adverse possession cannot be granted in favour of any claimant — Further held: declaratory decree in respect of shamilat deh land on the ground that any person seeks declaration that he has become owner of the shamilat-deh land, cannot be passed. Lal Begum v. Qayyum Khan 2016 SCR 107 (B) 2014 SCR 1537 rel.with
Held: It is well settled principle of law that the declaration cannot be claimed on the basis of possession over the Shamilat Deh land until and unless the same is partitioned and specific certificate by the Collector is granted. Further held: it is also now settled that no decree of ownership regarding the Shamilat Deh land on the basis of any agreement by a private person or cognovits can be granted. M. Rasheed v. M. Mushtaq Khan 2016 SCR 505 (A) 2014 SCR 1537 rel.
Shamilat Deh land — limited jurisdiction of Civil Courts — the Civil Court cannot grant permanent injunction against all the share-holders who possess the land in the estate. Held: After partition of the Shamilat Deh land, if anybody is in the possession of the land in excess of his legal share, then the legal proceedings can be initiated. Muhammad Rasheed & 5 others versus Muhammad Mushtaq Khan & 5 others 2016 SCR 505 (B) 2009 SCR 158 rel.
Held: if a share holder is in possession of land in dispute he cannot be dispossessed until and unless the Shamilat Deh land is partitioned. Moreover, after legal partition, if anybody is found in the possession of the land in excess of his legal share then the aggrieved party may approach the proper forum for redressal of his grievance. Muhammad Rasheed & 5 others versus Muhammad Mushtaq Khan & 5 others 2016 SCR 505 (D)
Shamilat Deh Land — not yet portitioned among co-sharers — without partition of the land the decree for possession of a specific survey number without mentioning of the boundaries of the same cannot be granted. Qurban Hussain v. Moti Begum & 7 others 2016 SCR 1704 (B)
—decree of title—cannot be granted—the decree of title cannot be granted in respect of the Shamilat Deh land. Sakeena Bibi v. Muhammad Ashiq & others 2017 SCR 242 (C) 2008 SCR 207, rel.
—possession of land owners over shamilat deh land—subject to partition and the respective shares in ownership of village/deh land— This Court has consistently enunciated principle of law that the land owners of the village, if they are in possession of any portion of Shamilat deh land, can retain such possession till legal partition of the land by the competent authority and on determination of proportionate share they can be ejected from the excess land if found in their possession. Therefore, for doing complete justice we deem it also necessary to hold that as both the parties are land owners in the village and they claimed to be in possession the Shamilat deh land but they, on legal partition of the Shamilat deh land of the village, shall only be entitled to the land to the extent of the share determined according to their entitlement. Sakeena Bibi v. Muhammad Ashiq & others 2017 SCR 242 (D)
—Decree for perpetual injunction— without legal partition of shamilat Deh Lnad—No proof regarding the legal partition of Shamilat Deh land of the village has been produced by the appellants. Held: in such situation, no decree for perpetual injunction regarding the said land can be passed—Further held: if any portion of the land whether it is crown land or Shamilat Deh land, is in possession of the appellants they cannot be dispossessed without adopting the due course of law. Auragzeb & 4 others v. Muhammad Ayub & another 2017 SCR 464 (B)
—declaratory decree—grant of—prohibited—in respect of Shamilat deh land—general principle—what type of declaration prayed—not discussed in impugned judgment—multiple remedies prayed for—if one or more cannot be granted— does not mean that other remedies—are also barred—The courts below are unanimous on the point that the declaratory decree regarding the Shamilat Deh land cannot be granted, however, it has not been discussed in the judgments that what sort of declaration has been claimed by the appellants. Even otherwise, it is now settled that where the multiple remedies have been prayed by a party, it anyone of the same cannot be granted that does not mean that the suit would be treated barred for all other claimed remedies Marim Bibi & others v. Hakim Ali & others 2017 SCR 944 (A)
—allotment of— by rehabilitation authority or the Custodian— disputed piece of land admittedly Shamilat –deh land and not evacuee land— allotment of Shamilat deh land by the Rehabilitation authority or the Custodian —held: without lawful authority— the Rehabilitation authority or the Custodian can exercise powers only regarding the evacuee property and not otherwise. Education Department v. Custodian & others 2017 SCR 1276 (A)
—No declaratory decree can be passed by any Court without impleading the whole village proprietary body— no declaratory decree or a decree for perpetual injunction in favour of some co-sharers of the village on the basis of cognovits/compromise can be passed —held: the decree so passed would be a nullity in the eye of law and all the transactions on the basis of such decree also would have no value. Ch. Maqbool Ahmed & other v. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal 2017 SCR 1653 (A) 2015 SCR 107, 2006 SCR 92 and 2009 SCR 158 rel.
—Shamilat deh land— neither any declaration of title can be made on the basis of agreement-to-sell nor can a decree of title can be granted in respect of Shamlat Deh landwithout providing an opportunity of hearing to other co-owners. Ch. Maqbool Ahmed & other v. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal 2017 SCR 1653 (B)
—Shamilat deh land— reserved for common purpose —necessary party—impleadment of—under law in every village, 20% of the Shamilat Deh land is reserved for common purpose and the same is under the control of the revenue authorities— the defendant-appellant without impleading the village proprietary body and the revenue authorities have obtained a collusive decree on the basis of compromise which is held: nullity in the eye of law. Ch. Maqbool Ahmed & other v. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal 2017 SCR 1653 (C)
—Shamilat deh land— collusive decree—held: when thedecree is declared illegal, the superstructure built on the basis of that decree shall automatically fall to the ground. Ch. Maqbool Ahmed & other v. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal 2017 SCR 1653 (D)
— the Shamilat Deh land in which the village whole proprietary body is a co-sharer cannot be alienated through cognovits/compromise or agreement-to sell. Ch. Maqbool Ahmed & other v. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal 2017 SCR 1653 (H)
—Decree of title— in respect of Shamilat deh land, the decree of title cannot be granted—if any land owner is in possession of any portion of said land, he can retain such possession till legal partition and after determination of proportionate share he can be ejected from the excess land. Forests Department & others v. Mumtaz Hussain & others 2022 SCR 262 (A) 2017 SCR 242 rel
—Change of Status of Land— MehfoozKacharai to Shamilat Deh—Order of the Revenue Authorities— not Challenged under Land Revenue Act, 1967—instead, approached the Govt. functionaries— order attained finality—Appellants Kept on pursuing the matter on executive side of the Govt. Contention: that the appellants not acquired the knowledge of the change of status of land as to Shamilat Deh Land and due to stay order of High Court could not challenge before the revenue authorities. Held. From the record it is evident that the stance taken by the appellant is ill-founded as the respondent filed writ petition on 1.11.2001, whereas the appellant had already approached the Govt. functionaries for nullifying the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Development Authority vs Inhabitant of Village Narol 2018 SCR 253 (A)
—change of status of land—-MehfoozKacharai to Shamilat Deh Land—mutation sanctioned to that effect—Government not empowered to change status of Shamilat Deh land as same is common land of villagers. The revenue authorities have declared the status of the land, as Shamilat Deh land and under the settled law the Government or any other State functionary is not empowered to transfer the same as Shamilat Deh land is common land of villagers. Development Authority vs Inhabitant of Village Narol 2018 SCR 253 (C)
Not partitioned —if in possession of shareholder—even in excess of legal share—he cannot be ousted without adopting proper course— Admittedly the disputed land is shmilatdeh which is not partitioned as yet. There is no cavil with the proposition that without partition, nobody can be dispossessed from shamilatdeh land, which is in his possession, without adopting the proper course and even if the party is in possession of the land in excess of his legal share, the aggrieved person can approach the relevant forum. Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Qasim Khan & others 2018 SCR 623 (B)
—According to the unanimous settled principle of law, the civil Court can neither grant declaratory ownership decree of the Shamilatdeh land nor the decree of specific possession. Munshi Khan &others vs Sardar Khan & others 2018 SCR 854 (A) 2017 SCR 1653, ref
No declaratory decree can be granted by the trial Court without impleading the whole village proprietary body. Munshi Khan &others vs Sardar Khan & others 2018 SCR 854 (B)
— The land owners in the village, if they are in possession of any portion of the shamilat deh land, can retain such possession till legal partition of the land by the competent authority and on determination of proportionate shares, they can be ejected from the excess land if found in their possession — respondents directed not to dispossess appellant from the land till legal partition of shamilat deh land. Lal Muhammad vs Azad Govt. & 06 others 2024 SCR250 (A&B) PLJ 2001 SC(AIK) 405 rel.