QADIR BAKHSH And Another vs SANWAL KHAN And 6 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over land allotment under land reform laws. The petitioners were initially allotted survey No. 232 in Deh Baro, District Naseerabad, under Martial Law Regulation No. 117. This allotment was subsequently cancelled by the Board of Revenue, and the land was granted to the respondents. The respondents filed a civil suit for declaration, injunction, possession, and mesne profits, which was decreed in their favor by the District Judge. On appeal, the High Court maintained the decree regarding the declaration, possession, and injunction but set aside the award for mesne profits, finding the claim untenable. The petitioners sought leave to appeal against this High Court judgment. The Supreme Court held that the allotment of land to the respondents had been finalized through the proper hierarchy of the Land Reforms Regulation and was legally sound. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to deny mesne profits. Finding no substantial question of law requiring further consideration, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Is an order of land allotment made under the hierarchy of Martial Law Regulation No. 117 subject to judicial interference if the process was finalized?
- Are respondents entitled to mesne profits in a suit for declaration and possession where the underlying claim for such profits is found to be legally untenable?
- Section 5(3), Martial Law Regulation No. 117
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The dispute in this petition relates to survey No.232 situate in Deh Baro, Teshsil that Pat of District Naseerabad. The said survey number was initially allotted to the petitioners under section 5(3) of Martial Law Regulation No.117 by the Land Reforms Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Naseerabad. This order was successfully challenged by the respondents and the order of allotment was set aside by the Board of Revenue and the land was granted to the respondents on 23rd July, 1975. This decision was challenged by the petitioners before the Federal Government, but their revision was dismissed on 10-3-1984. The respondents having thus been granted the disputed land, filed a suit on 9-2-1981 in the Court of the District Judge, Sibi for declaration, injunction, possession and mesne profits. The petitioners contested the suit and after necessary trial the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents on 29-6-1986 by the District Judge, Naseerabad to whom the case was transferred after the creation of the new Division.
Aggrieved by such judgment and decree, , the petitioners went up in regular first appeal in the High Court where the decree passed by the trial Court was maintained to the extend of declaration, possession and injunction, but was set aside as respects the mesne profits as the cases of the respondents in this behalf was found to be untenable. The petitioners have now brought this petition seeking leave to 'appeal from the impugned judgment of the learned High Court.
2. We heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment. In so far as the allotment of land in favour of the respondents was concerned, the matter stood finalised by various orders passed in the heirarchy of Land Reforms Regulation. Therefore, the transfer of the land under the provisions-of the Regulation was held to be in order. However, on the legal plane, it was rightly found by the learned High Court that the respondents were not entitled to claim mesne profits and to this extent the petitioners have already succeeded. The judgment of the learned High Court is well considered and no question of law arises for consideration in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.