Pakistan Case Law← Search
1985 SCMR 552

Nawabzada MUHAMMAD SHAH KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, TRIBUNAL LAND DISPUTES And Other

Citation1985 SCMR 552
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 179-R of 1984 Writ Petition No. 420 of 1982
Date1984-11-17
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Haleem, Shafi-ur-
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.-- The petitioner impugned the order of the High Court, dated 23rd of April, 1984, in Writ Petition No. 420 of 1982 by which the order of the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir, Swat and Chitral at Mardan, was upheld.

2. While rejecting the revision filed by Zila Khan and Nematullah, brothers inter se claiming certain land held by Nawabzada Muhammad Shah Khan of Hayaseri, the Tribunal held: "The file does not specifically clarify the land which belonged to the plaintiff /petitioner but if they own any more land which has not been transferred by the aforesaid deeds and that is in possession of the defendant /respondent they are entitled to get it from him."

3. This observation was made while conceding to the petitioner that he legally held 52 Sattas of land.

4. The grievance of the petitioner was that the above observation should not have been made as it has led to the filing of the execution proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Dir, against the petitioner when the Chairman had not declared the respondents to be the owners of the suit property in possession of the petitioner with reference to any specific area, boundaries and Khasra Numbers etc. The High Court while dismissing the petition held that the petitioner was declared as an owner of 52 Sattas of land, but if he held some more land than what was held to be his, the respondents could claim that land and in that context the observation was not perverse. The respondents- had claimed that the petitioner had forcibly taken possession of land measuring three rupees equivalent to 330 Sattas and if that was so then after excluding 52 Sattas of land sold to him, the respondents could claim the balance of the area in possession of the petitioner in the absence of any specification with reference to boundaries, area and Khasra Numbers etc. In this view of the matter, the petition is without any substance and is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search