Nawabzada MUHAMMAD SHAH KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, TRIBUNAL LAND DISPUTES And Other
This matter arises from a petition impugning an order of the High Court upholding the decision of the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir, Swat and Chitral at Mardan. The core legal question concerns whether the Tribunal's observation allowing respondents to claim additional land from the petitioner, without specifying boundaries, area, or Khasra numbers, was lawful and capable of execution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the petitioner was declared owner of a specific extent of land (52 Sattas), and any excess land allegedly in his forcible possession could legitimately be claimed by the respondents, rendering the observation unperverse. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without substance, affirming the principle that ambiguous possessory claims of excess land do not invalidate general findings of entitlement where specific boundaries are yet to be ascertained.
- Whether an observation by a land tribunal regarding unclaimed or excess land without specific boundaries and Khasra numbers is sustainable?
- Can execution proceedings be initiated based on general observations in a tribunal order regarding land possession?
- Whether a High Court order upholding a tribunal's finding on land ownership warrants interference under constitutional jurisdiction?
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.