MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Others vs Mst. BALAN BIBI
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction, which modified a trial court decree regarding the recovery of possession of land. The core legal question concerns whether a suit for possession filed by an allottee is competent without taking possession through the Revenue Department under section 10(4) of the Colony Act, and whether a suit for partition was instead required. The Supreme Court held that since the allotment order was based on the report of the field staff and allotments were duly made by the Collector, the respondent was entitled to possess her share, rendering the suit for possession competent. The court thereby affirmed that an allottee given specific shares via a valid allotment order is entitled to seek possession of their allotted share through a suit for possession rather than strictly necessitating partition proceedings.
- Is a suit for possession competent when an allottee has not taken formal possession through the Revenue Department?
- Whether an allottee holding a valid share under an allotment order must file a suit for partition instead of a suit for possession?
- Does an allotment order based on the report of the field staff entitle an allottee to recover possession of their specific share?
- Section 10(4), Colony Act
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore Nigh Court Multan Bench dated 6th July, 1986 while exercising his revisional jurisdiction. The background is that the petitioners alongwith the respondent were allotted the disputed Khata in equal shares. The respondent instituted a suit for the recovery of possession of 15 Marlas of land of the disputed Khata in possession of the petitioners The trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal the decree was modified on the basis of the allotment order dated 14th October 1964 whereby the respondent on the one hand and both the petitioners on the other ere each allotted 1/2-1/2 shares of the suit Khata. Thus the respondent's suit was decreed to the extent of her own share in the dispute Khata. In revision before the High Court the petitioners' contention was that the respondent had not taken possession of the disputed Khata rough the Revenue Department as required by section 10 (4) of the Colony Act and, therefore, her suit for possession was not competent and that she should have filed a suit for partition and possession. It is evident that the allotment order dated 14th October 1964 was based on the report of the field staff of the Revenue Department and according to the same the Collector had made the allotments of the suit Khata on the basis of that report. Thus the respondent was entitled to have possession to the extent of her share and this 4ras what the appellate Court had done. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.