PUNJAB PROVINCE through District Collector, Sargodha vs MUHAMMAD YAR
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Punjab Province against three concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which had decreed the respondent's suit for possession in respect of land measuring 35 kanals and 1 marla. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner could claim adverse possession over the suit land based on entries in the Register Girdawari indicating possession by the Forest Department. The Supreme Court held that the petition was devoid of force, affirming the lower courts' findings that the petitioner had no title and its possession was illegal, as there was no material to establish the starting point of adverse possession to the knowledge of the respondent, and further noted that it does not befit the Provincial Government to expropriate a citizen's property on the plea of limitation. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Can the Provincial Government claim adverse possession without establishing the date or year it commenced to the knowledge of the owner?
- Whether a suit for possession can be defeated by a plea of limitation or adverse possession raised by a party with no title?
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Punjab Province against three concurrent judgments/decrees of the three Courts below namely of the Civil Judge, Sargodha, District Judge, Sargodha and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 7-12-1980, 19-4-1982 and 21-10-1992 respectively decreeing the respondent's suit for possession in respect of the suit land measuring 35 Kanals and 1 Marla. The petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that as the Register Girdawery Mauza for the year 1958-81 (page 54 of the Paper Book) indicates that the suit land was in possession of the Forest Department of the Provincial Government, the suit could not have been decreed as the petitioner had adverse possession.
The above contention is devoid of any force. All the Courts below have found that the petitioner had no title to the suit land and its possession was illegal. There is no material on the basis of which a plea of adverse possession of the petitioner could have succeeded. It has not been brought on record from what date or year the petitioner claimed adverse possession to the knowledge of the respondent. Even otherwise it is not befitting for the Provincial Government to take away the property of .a citizen on the plea of limitation.
3. The judgments/decrees of the Courts below seem to be just and proper. Leave is accordingly refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- IMTIAZ ALI SHAH vs MUHAMMAD ALI and 6 others 2001 YLR 679
- Syed IMTIAZ ALI SHAH vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Other K.L.R. 2002 Revenue Cases 90