QURBAN ALI and anothers vs COMMISSIONER and anothers
This civil petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which allowed a writ petition filed by respondents. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly treated the underlying dispute under Rules 67-A and 67-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, as a matter of demarcation and eviction of a person in unauthorized possession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court proceeded on a wrong assumption, as the actual matter pertained to the forcible wrongful dispossession of the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest, and the writ petition was not competent in view of the factual controversy involved. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned order while leaving the aggrieved party at liberty to avail the appropriate legal remedy before the proper forum.
- Whether a writ petition is competent when the case involves a disputed factual controversy regarding forcible wrongful dispossession?
- Do Rules 67-A and 67-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 apply to cases of forcible wrongful dispossession rather than demarcation and eviction?
- Can an impugned order based on a wrong assumption of facts be sustained?
- Rule 67-A, Land Revenue Rules 1968
- Rule 67-B, Land Revenue Rules 1968
ORDER
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil petition is directed against the judgment dated 19-9-2003 passed in Writ Petition No,4751 of 1993 by learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby the said writ petition was allowed hence the present petition.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo. Of petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and caveat or and have gone through the record. We find that learned Judge in Chambers of High Court passed the impugned order on the wrong assumption that it was a case of demarcation and eviction of a person in unauthorized possession. Perusal of application filed by the petitioner at page 37 of the Paper Book would show that it was a case of forcible wrongful dispossession of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners by the respondent No,6. The said order dated 21-7-1993 obtained by the petitioner's predecessor was not challenged before the Revenue Authority by way of appeal by the respondents but a suit was filed by the respondent No,6 which was subsequently withdrawn and then writ petition was filed which on the face of record was not competent in view A of the factual controversy, in the circumstances of the case. We also find that Rules 67-A and 67-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968 were not applicable in the case as it was not a case of demarcation or eviction of the person in unauthorized possession in lieu thereof.
2.(sic) In the circumstances of the case the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed however, the aggrieved party would at liberty to avail the remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Cited by 2 cases
- Ahmed Bakhsh vs Ghulam Hussain Etc. 2008 KLR Revenue Cases 73
- AHMAD BAKHSH Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN 2007 CLC 454