MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 12 Others vs Ch. FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND 8 Other
This matter originated from a dispute over the possession of two squares of land, where the respondent filed an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Following an inquiry, the Additional District Magistrate passed an order on 27 November 1962, declaring the respondent had been illegally dispossessed and was entitled to recover possession. Despite this, the Magistrate later dismissed the respondent's application for implementation, claiming the original order was merely declaratory and lacked specificity regarding the land's identity. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Sessions Judge and the High Court, finding that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to review the final order of 27 November 1962. The Court held that an order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not merely declaratory but requires a determination of possession, and that the identity of the land was sufficiently established in the initial application and preliminary order. Consequently, the Magistrate's refusal to implement the order was set aside.
- Does an Additional District Magistrate have the jurisdiction to review a final order passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an order passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely declaratory in nature?
- Can a Magistrate refuse to implement an order under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the grounds of lack of specificity if the land was identified in the preliminary order?
- Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Faiz Mohammad, respondent, moved an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan, on the assertion that he was wrongly dispossessed of two squares of land by the petitioners herein.
2. A protracted inquiry was held and eventually an order in his favour was passed on 27-11-1962 declaring that he had been illegally dispossessed by the petitioners and that he was entitled to recover possession. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 moved successive applications for implementation of the order of the 27th November 1962, but without any success. In the meantime, the petitioners filed a civil suit and obtained an injunction on appeal from the Court of the District Judge which was eventually vacated by the High Court. However, the Additional District Magistrate, when moved again by the respondent No. 1 for delivery of possession, dismissed the application for the reason that the order dated the 27th November 1962, was only declaratory and the identity of the land was not specified in it.
3. On hearing learned counsel we find no reason to differ with the view formed by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court. The order dated the 27th November 1962, had attained finality and under the Code of Criminal Procedure the Additional District Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to review it. The conclusion reached by him that the order was declaratory in nature was also erroneous inasmuch as under section 145 the Court is required to declare which of the parties before it, is entitled to remain in possession. Similarly, the identity of the land in dispute was fully set out in the application made by respondent No. 1 as well as in the preliminary order passed under subsection (1) of section 145.
Cited by 2 cases
- Aminullah and others vs Syed Haji Muhammad Ayub and others 2023 SCP 382, 2024 SCMR 136
- Ch. Asghar Ali vs Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace 2022 P Cr. L J 366