WARIS KHAN and 18 others vs Col. HUMAYUN SHAH and 41 others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that affirmed a decree in favor of the respondents regarding the ownership of suit land and the correction of revenue records. The petitioners argued that the respondents' remedy for correcting revenue entries lay exclusively with revenue officers under the Land Revenue Act, not the Civil Court, and that the suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, holding that because the defendants denied the plaintiffs' title in their written statement, the Civil Court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the respective titles of the parties regarding the joint property. Furthermore, the Court determined that since the suit property was recorded as joint ownership and the land was Banjer Qadeem (uncultivated waste land) without established physical possession by either party, issues of limitation and adverse possession were inapplicable. The Court found no legal error in the concurrent findings of the lower forums, which had declared the plaintiffs as owners and the revenue entries as incorrect, and consequently dismissed the petition.
- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate title and correct revenue records when the defendants deny the plaintiffs' title in their written statement?
- Does the principle of limitation or adverse possession apply to joint property where the land is Banjer Qadeem and no physical possession is established?
- Is a suit for declaration of title and correction of revenue records maintainable in a Civil Court when the defendants dispute the plaintiffs' ownership?
- Land Revenue Act
1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Waris Khan and others petitioners herein, call in question the judgment dated 3-2-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, whereby their Revision Petition No, 257 of 1992 against the judgment of the appellate Court dated 7-5-1992 was dismissed.
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Colonel Humayun Shah and others, respondents, filed a suit against Waris Khan and others, petitioners, for declaration and perpetual injunction to the effect that they are owners of the suit land described in the heading of the plaint and that the entries in the Revenue Record in the name of the defendants/petitioners are wrong and ineffective on their rights and for settlement of accounts regarding the compensation which the defendants/petitioners have received. The saline was duly contested, necessary issues in the case were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded and the learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 17-2-1991, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. The defendants/petitioners preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed.
3. Their revision petition was also dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have heard Haji Bashir Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioners; Mian Hisamuddin Khan, Advocate, for the respondents; and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
5. ' It is not denied that the entries of the Jamabandis after 1942-43 have been changed without any mutation of alienation by the plaintiffs/respondents or their predecessor. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that the plaintiffs prayed for correction of the Revenue Record for which their remedy was before the revenue officer under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and not before the Civil Court for declaration of title and that the lower forums have exceeded their jurisdiction in entertaining the suit and granting the decree prayed for. He also stressed that the suit was hopelessly barred by time. This aspect of the case has been duly considered by the lower three forums. The defendants/petitioners in their written statement have flatly denied the title of the plaintiffs/respondents to the suit land and therefore only the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the respective titles of the parties regarding the joint property and the correctness or otherwise of the Revenue Record. Even if the plaintiffs/respondents had gone to the Revenue Authorities for correction of the Revenue Record still the incorrect entries being very old and the question of prescriptive title being involved the defendants/petitioners would have not only objected to corrections through summary process but would have questioned their jurisdiction on account of laches and limitation. Admittedly, the suit property is recorded as joint ownership of the parties and since the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all, though in this case physical possession of none of the parties is established the land being Banjer Qadeem and no question of limitation or adverse possession arose in the instant litigation. All the lower three forums have concurrently held the plaintiffs/respondents owners of the suit land and have declared the revenue entries as incorrect.
6. ' We do not find any legal error in the impugned judgments of the lower forums and accordingly dismiss the instant petition and refuse leave to appeal.