MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 12 Others vs Ch. FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND 8 OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which accepted a reference made by the Sessions Judge and set aside an order of the Additional District Magistrate. The respondent had originally filed an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to a final order on 27-11-1962 declaring him entitled to possession of the disputed land. When the respondent sought implementation of this order, the Additional District Magistrate dismissed the application, holding that the order was merely declaratory and lacked land identity, effectively reviewing his own prior decision. The core legal question is whether the Additional District Magistrate had the jurisdiction to review or refuse to implement a final order passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the Additional District Magistrate lacked the legal authority to review the final order, and that the order was properly a declaration of entitlement to possession with sufficiently identifiable land. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a magistrate cannot review a final adjudication under section 145.
- Does an Additional District Magistrate have the jurisdiction to review a final order passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Whether an order declaring a party entitled to possession under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is merely declaratory and unenforceable?
- Can a magistrate refuse to implement a final order under section 145 on the ground of lack of identity of land when the preliminary order and application fully set it out?
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Faiz Mohammad, respondent, moved an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, on the assertion that he was wrongly dispossessed of to squares of land by the petitioners herein. A protracted inquiry was held and eventually an order in his favour was passed on 27-11-1962 declaring that he had been illegally dispossessed by the petitioners and that he was entitled to rec6ver possession. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 moved successive applications for implementation of the order of the 27th November 1962, but without any success. In the meantime, the 'petitioners filed a civil suit and obtained an injunction on appeal from the Court of the District Judge which was eventually vacated by the High Court. However, the Additional District Magistrate, when moved again by the respondent No. 1 for delivery of possession, dismissed the application for the reason that the order dated the 27th November 1962, was only declaratory A and the identity of the land was not specified in it.
2. In substance, the Additional District Magistrate had reviewed the order dated the 27th November 1962, for which he had no legal authority. The Sessions Judge, accordingly, at the instance of the respondent No. 1 made a reference to the High Court for setting aside the order as illegal and without jurisdic--tion. The reference was accepted by the High Court with which the petitioners feel aggrieved.
3. On hearing learned counsel we find no reason to differ' with the view formed by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court. The order dated the 27th November 1962, had attained finality and under the Code of Criminal Procedure the Additional District Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to review it. The conclusion reached by him that the order 6 was declaratory in nature was also erroneous inasmuch as under section 145 the Court is required to declare which of the parties before it, is entitled to remain in possession. Similarly, the identity of the land in dispute wag fully set out in the application made by respondent No. 1 as well as in the preliminary order passed under subsection (1) of section 145.
4. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the High Court accepting the reference and setting aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated the 27th November 1962.
5. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Barkat Ali vs State through A.A.G. and another 2020 YLR 1443
- MUHAMMAD LEHRASIF vs The STATE and another 2019 P Cr. L J 318
- THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. Versus SHAHEEN IQBAL AND 4 OTHERS 1988 PCRLJ 2294