KAISAR SINGH Alias SARDAR KHAN vs ABDUL MAJID And Other
The petitioner, a Sikh by birth who embraced Islam and remained in Pakistan after Partition, sought a declaration from the Deputy Custodian that his ancestral land was non-evacuee property, claiming ownership through adverse possession. The Deputy Custodian rejected the plea, a decision upheld by the Custodian and the High Court in writ jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the petitioner established adverse possession and whether he should be permitted to retain his ancestral share. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove adverse possession. Regarding his ancestral share, the Court observed that although he seemingly lost it due to pressing an incorrect plea for the entire property, it was open to him to seek legal remedies to reopen the matter if legally possible. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Did the petitioner successfully prove ownership of the land through adverse possession?
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in its writ jurisdiction regarding the Custodian's order?
- Can a party who unsuccessfully claims an entire property on a wrong plea subsequently seek to recover their admitted ancestral share?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner was a Sikh by birth and occupying his ancestral land. He decided to remain in Pakistan after the Partition of the Sub-Continent and also embraced Islam.
2. The land in question, however, was treated as evacuee property and allotted to the refugees. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Deputy Custodian for a declaration that the land in question was non-evacuee and his plea in support of this claim was that he had become its owner by means of an adverse possession. This plea was, however, rejected by the Deputy Custodian in the detailed order wherein all the relevant circumstances were taken into account. This was upheld by the Custodian, Evacuee Property and the High Court refused to interfere in writ, jurisdiction.
3. Pir dyed Altaf Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended firstly that the view of the Custodian authorities that the petitioner had not become owner through adverse possession was incorrect and the High Court should have interfered in its jurisdiction. Secondly, that even if the above plea was not acceptable the petitioner should, at, least, have been allowed to retain his own share in the ancestral land, especially when he had embraced Islam, continued to remain in Pakistan and was not an evacuee.
4. So far as the first contention is concerned we are inclined to agree with the view expressed by the Deputy Custodian and upheld by the Custodian that the petitioner had failed to prove his adverse possession.
5. As for the second plea it appears that the petitioner had not pressed his case on this basis.
However, if, indeed, the petitioner has lost his own share in the property due to his wrong plea and anxiety to get the entire property and not merely his own share nonetheless we feel that if it is legally possible, he should at least. Be allowed to retain his own share in the ancestral land. It is now for him to consider how he can get the matter re-opened to get his share which he appears to have lost, by his own follies.
6. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.