SARDAR and others vs SHAUKAT ALI and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that certain property vested in them and was not evacuee property. The trial court, the district court, and the Lahore High Court had previously dismissed the suit, holding that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the civil court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the status of property treated as evacuee property, particularly when the property had been allotted to an allottee and possession delivered. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the petition lacked merit. The Court held that since the property was allotted as evacuee property and possession was delivered, the allotment remained unchallenged. The key principle laid down is that where property is treated as evacuee property and allotted, any person claiming an interest therein is legally required to approach the Custodian authorities for a declaration, rather than invoking the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the status of property treated as evacuee property?
- Is a person claiming an interest in property allotted as evacuee property required to approach the Custodian authorities for a declaration?
- Can a civil suit be maintained to declare property as non-evacuee after it has been allotted and possession delivered to an allottee?
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Petitioners' suit for declaration that the property vested in them and was not evacuee was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhakkar, District Mianwali, vide judgment and decree dated 19-4-1980, appeal by the learned District Judge, Mianwali on 4-1-1982 and revision by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore on 16-5-1982, for lack of jurisdiction. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. 'The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land in dispute was part of Shamlat Deh and was not alienated by their predecessor-ininterest in favour of an evacuee.
3. Therefore, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the question as to whether the disputed property was correctly treated as an evacuee property.
4. It has been found that the property was allotted as evacuee and possession delivered to the allottee. The allotment was never challenged. Any person claiming an interest was required to apply to the Custodian authorities for a declaration in his favour. It was never done. The suit, in the circumstances, was rightly dismissed and order upheld by the two Courts below. No case is made out for interference by this Court.
5. ' The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 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.
Cited by 7 cases
- Haji RUSTAM vs ABDUL SATTAR and others 2016 PLJ Peshawar 107
- Haji RUSTAM Versus ABDUL SATTAR 2016 YLRN 189
- NASIR FAHIMUDDIN and others vs CHARLES PHILIPS MILLS and others 2017 SCMR 468
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR and otherss' vs Begum MARYAM SALAMAT and others 2004 CLC 132
- ZUBAIR ZAFAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB & Other K.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 64
- ZUBAIR ZAFAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 1993 PLC(CS) 683
- SAID AKBAR KHAN and others vs ALI MUHAMMAD 1992 CLC 1195