Citation Name: 2023 PLD 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BANDENAWAZ (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs FED

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PLD 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BANDENAWAZ (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy Director Ministry of Defence Ss. 3, 117, 135 & 172(2)(xiii)--- Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr. 67-A & 67-B---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Maintainability---Partition, demarcation of agricultural land and eviction of unauthorized land owner---Civil Court or Revenue Authorities, jurisdiction of---Scope---Subject of partition, demarcation and eviction of unauthorized land owner is regulated by S. 135 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (' the Act 1967') read with Rr. 67-A & 67-B of the Land Revenues Rules, 1968 ('the Rules 1968')---Provisions of S. 117 of the Act 1967 authorizes Revenue Officer to define the limit of any estate or any land on application of any interested person and to define limit of boundaries for ascertaining whether or not any outsider has encroached the property of the applicant and as a result such proceedings, a land owner, if found in wrongful possession of land can be evicted on an application---Rule 67-B of the Rules 1968, provides a specific procedure for seeking eviction of an encroacher---In a matter of demarcation of boundaries of agriculture land, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under S. 172(2)(xiii) of the Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('the Act 1967'), but in case where a claim is laid for declaration, permanent injunction and possession of area demarcated by the Revenue Authorities and found encroached by someone, a suit must lie before Civil Court. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BANDENAWAZ (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy Director Ministry of Defence Ss. 3, 117, 135 & 172(2)(xiii)--- Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr.67-A, 67-B---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10---Suit for declaration---Maintainability---Encroachment, dispute of---Civil Court or Revenue Authorities, jurisdiction of---Scope---Demarcation of agricultural land---Scope---Land of both the private parties were adjacent to each other and construction of bypass road by the Government resulted into dispute between them---Both the (private) parties filed separate suits for declaration, inter alia that the other respective party be declared as tress-passer/land-grabber and the respondent/Government be directed to forthwith carry out a survey and to demarcate the subject-property---Civil Court consolidated both suits, however, returned both the plaints under O. VII, R. 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for want of jurisdiction under S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967---Only the appellants challenged the impugned order before the High Court whereas the respondents (other private party ) supported the same---Validity---Pleadings of both the parties revealed that they had not challenged the property having been recorded in their respective names in the revenue record, but their main claim hinged on the controversy that some portion of their property fell in the construction of the road, therefore, the appellants through declaration under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, had actually sought relief of new right of demarcation---In case of controversies between the parties with regard to demarcation of boundaries of agricultural land, Civil Court had no jurisdiction unless demarcation of area had already been conducted by the Revenue Authorities under the provision of S. 117 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Rr. 67-A & 67-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968---Through a declaration in civil matter claimed under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a pre-existing right could be declared, but a new right could not be created by grant of a decree by the Civil Court---Where a claim of encroachment over his property was made by a person against the adjacent owner, his remedy laid before the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of land under Rr. 67-A & 68-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and in the said respect, the Revenue Officer had ample powers under S. 117 of the Act 1967 to define the boundaries---In the present case, neither any demarcation took place prior to institution of the suit, nor the appellants had taken any step to the said effect---There was no dispute between the parties with regard to title of the properties recorded in the revenue record---Both properties were adjacent to each other and both parties had raised claim that portion of their property fell in the construction of road made by the Government without specifying the encroached area---Title documents relied upon by the appellant showed his ownership, which right had not been denied by the respondent---Pleadings of the parties made clear that matter of demarcation of boundaries of the agricultural land had been raised by the appellants which fell in the domain of Revenue Authorities and jurisdiction of Civil Court was explicitly barred under S. 172(2)(xiii) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967---No interference in the impugned order of returning the plaints was made out by the High Court---First regular appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BANDENAWAZ (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy Director Ministry of Defence S. 3---Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 4(1)---West Punjab Alienation of Land Act (XIII of 1900), S. 2(3)---Land, definition of---Section 3 of the Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('the Act 1967') excludes land not assessed to land revenue from operation of the Act 1967---Under Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and under Land Reforms Regulations 1972, the term " Land" has been defined as land which is not occupied as the site of a town, village, factory or industrial establishment and is occupied or has been or can be let for agricultural purpose, allied or subservient to agriculture and includes the site of building and other structure on such land---Section 2(3) of the West Punjab Alienation of Land Act defines land as land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or let for agriculture purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture etc. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BANDENAWAZ (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy Director Ministry of Defence Ss. 3, 117, 135 & 172(2)(xiii)--- Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr.67-A, 67-B---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10---Suit for declaration---Maintainability---Encroachment, dispute of---Civil Court or Revenue Authorities, jurisdiction of---Scope---Demarcation of agricultural land---Scope---Land of both the private parties were adjacent to each other and construction of bypass road by the Government resulted into dispute between them---Both the (private) parties filed separate suits for declaration, inter alia that the other respective party be declared as tress-passer/land-grabber and the respondent/Government be directed to forthwith carry out a survey and to demarcate the subject-property---Civil Court consolidated both suits, however, returned both the plaints under O. VII, R. 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for want of jurisdiction under S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967---Only the appellants challenged the impugned order before the High Court whereas the respondents (other private party ) supported the same---Validity---Pleadings of both the parties revealed that they had not challenged the property having been recorded in their respective names in the revenue record, but their main claim hinged on the controversy that some portion of their property fell in the construction of the road, therefore, the appellants through declaration under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, had actually sought relief of new right of demarcation---In case of controversies between the parties with regard to demarcation of boundaries of agricultural land, Civil Court had no jurisdiction unless demarcation of area had already been conducted by the Revenue Authorities under the provision of S. 117 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Rr. 67-A & 67-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968---Through a declaration in civil matter claimed under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a pre-existing right could be declared, but a new right could not be created by grant of a decree by the Civil Court---Where a claim of encroachment over his property was made by a person against the adjacent owner, his remedy laid before the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of land under Rr. 67-A & 68-B of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and in the said respect, the Revenue Officer had ample powers under S. 117 of the Act 1967 to define the boundaries---In the present case, neither any demarcation took place prior to institution of the suit, nor the appellants had taken any step to the said effect---There was no dispute between the parties with regard to title of the properties recorded in the revenue record---Both properties were adjacent to each other and both parties had raised claim that portion of their property fell in the construction of road made by the Government without specifying the encroached area---Title documents relied upon by the appellant showed his ownership, which right had not been denied by the respondent---Pleadings of the parties made clear that matter of demarcation of boundaries of the agricultural land had been raised by the appellants which fell in the domain of Revenue Authorities and jurisdiction of Civil Court was explicitly barred under S. 172(2)(xiii) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967---No interference in the impugned order of returning the plaints was made out by the High Court---First regular appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BANDENAWAZ (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy Director Ministry of Defence Ss. 3, 117, 135 & 172(2)(xiii)--- Land Revenue Rules, 1968, Rr. 67-A & 67-B---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Maintainability---Partition, demarcation of agricultural land and eviction of unauthorized land owner---Civil Court or Revenue Authorities, jurisdiction of---Scope---Subject of partition, demarcation and eviction of unauthorized land owner is regulated by S. 135 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (' the Act 1967') read with Rr. 67-A & 67-B of the Land Revenues Rules, 1968 ('the Rules 1968')---Provisions of S. 117 of the Act 1967 authorizes Revenue Officer to define the limit of any estate or any land on application of any interested person and to define limit of boundaries for ascertaining whether or not any outsider has encroached the property of the applicant and as a result such proceedings, a land owner, if found in wrongful possession of land can be evicted on an application---Rule 67-B of the Rules 1968, provides a specific procedure for seeking eviction of an encroacher---In a matter of demarcation of boundaries of agriculture land, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under S. 172(2)(xiii) of the Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('the Act 1967'), but in case where a claim is laid for declaration, permanent injunction and possession of area demarcated by the Revenue Authorities and found encroached by someone, a suit must lie before Civil Court.

Citation Name: 2023 PLD 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case BANDENAWAZ (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy Director Ministry of Defence Ss — 2023 PLD 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD