MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE Para

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

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE Para. No. 22---Shamlat Deh land---Ala Maaliks and Adna Maaliks, concepts of---Interpretation of the judgments rendered in the cases of "Ladhoo v. B.O.R." (1991 MLD 99), and "Ladhoo v. B.O.R" in C.Ps. Nos.823 and 824-L of 1990---Appellants were Adna Maaliks who held possession over land in?the Shamlat Deh -- Appellants challenged mutation entries and orders of the revenue officers whereby the land in their possession was not recorded as under their ownership consequent to West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (MLR No. 64 of 1959) ["MLR-64"]---Case of appellants was based on the implementation of the High Court judgment reported as Ladhoo v. B.O.R." (1991 MLD 99), and the Supreme Court judgment "Ladhoo v. B.O.R" in C.Ps. Nos.823 and 824-L of 1990, wherein they claimed that their rights as Adna Maaliks having possession in the Shamilat Deh had been recognized and upheld in terms of MLR 64 and Notification dated 3rd March, 1960 issued by the West Pakistan Land Commission under the MLR-64 ("1960 Notification")---Respondents were Ala Maaliks, who claimed a superior right in the Shamlat Deh on the basis of their proprietary rights in the village, meaning thatthey claimed proportionate ownership in the Shamlat Deh according to their proprietorship in the village---Respondents relied on the Hasab Rasad Khewat and the Wajib-ul-Arz to justify their entitlement to proprietary rights in the Shamlat Deh---[Per Amin-ud-Din Khan, J. [Majority view]: Appellants were unable to state what their status over suit land (Shamlat Deh land) was except that they were in possession and cultivating the Shamlat land---It did not create any right in favour of appellants if they were in possession of Shamlat land---It seemed that appellants who were previously Aala Maalik or under the Aala Maalik, wanted to grab Shamlat land on the plea that they were in possession--- Without any right or valid entrance upon the Shamlat land they cannot claim any right---Concept of Aala Maalik was no more in existence after promulgation of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (MLR No. 64 of 1959) ["MLR-64"]---It was admitted by the appellants that they were not recorded Aala Khud Adna Maalik or Adna Maalik in the village proprietary land---Through the decision of case titled "Ladhoo v. B.O.R" reported as 1991 MLD 99 and order of dismissal of C.Ps. Nos. 823 and 824-L of 1990 by the Supreme Court no rights were created in favour of the present appellants---For determination of rights in the Shamlat Deh the benchmark as well as formula for grant of rights is on the basis of entitlement of a person in the malkiyat khata; whatever rights he was holding on the basis of said rights he is entitled to get land in the Shamlat Deh---Person who has absolutely no rights in the malkiyat khata, he cannot be granted any right in the Shamlat Deh khata---No right had been created in favour of the appellants by the MLR-64 nor they could show that any right had been created in their favour---Wrong picture of the judgment passed by the High Court reported as 1991 MLD 99 was shown to the Supreme Court---Distribution of Shamlat land upon the proprietary body of village was a rule under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 and wajib-ul-arz also supported the distribution of Shamlat land in accordance with the ownership of the whole proprietary body of the village---In accordance with para 6 of 1960 Notification distribution of Shamlat land was upon two categories only i.e. Adna Maaliks and Ala Khud Adna Maalik and none was entitled for grant of land on the basis of possession only---If anyone was in possession on the Shamlat land without having any right in the proprietorship khata, he had absolutely no right for grant of Shamlat land---The aforementioned two categories create the proprietary body of the village, therefore, they were entitled for distribution of Shamlat land in proportionate with their proprietorship---Appeals were dismissed]---[Per Ayesha A. Malik, J. [Minority view]: High Court judgment reported as Ladhoo v. B.O.R." (1991 MLD 99) ("1990 HC Judgment") and the Supreme Court judgment "Ladhoo v. B.O.R." in C.Ps. Nos.823 and 824-L of 1990 ("1991 SC Judgment") both concluded that the revenue authorities did not commit any illegality in removing the names of Ala Maaliks from column No.3 of the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 in which they were reflected as owners---This fact alone was enough to show that the rights of Adna Maaliks consequent to MLR 64 and the 1960 Notification had to be recognized, in that, the revenue record had to translate the possessory rights of Adna Maaliks into their proprietary rights---Revenue record showed that the possession of Adna Maaliks in the Shamlat Deh had not been challenged---Secondly, the available records did not reflect that Ala Maaliks had, at any time, challenged MLR 64 or the 1960 Notification; to the contrary, they repeatedly sought exclusive possession in the Shamlat Deh as against Ala-khud-Adna and Adna Maaliks, which were denied by the Supreme Court---Hence, both the '1990 HC Judgment' and '1991 SC Judgment' recognized the rights of Adna Maaliks and clarified that even where there were no Adna Maaliks under Ala Maaliks, Ala Maaliks could not claim ownership in the Shamlat Deh on account of MLR-64---Furthermore, as per the revenue record and the Jamabandis relied upon, Adna Maaliks did have possession in the Shamlat Deh; therefore, they were entitled to proprietary rights over the land in their possession consequent to MLR 64---There were no superior rights for Ala Maaliks and any claim on the basis of Ala Maalikat stood terminated after MLR-64---Where a person was entered in the revenue record as Ala Maalik as well as Ala-khud-Adna Maalik, they could retain that land as Adna Maalik but not as Ala Maalik---Only time they could retain their title as Ala Maaliks was when there was no Adna Maalik under them---Proprietary rights of Adna Maaliks as on 03.03.1960 was based on MLR 64 and any excess land in their possession for which they claimed proprietary right had to be based on some grant, lease, inheritance or lawful manner involving proper transfer of title in their favour---In the event that there was extra land with no legal backing and subject to Clause 6(d) of the 1960 Notification, an order must be passed to that effect and the land would resume in favour of the government---Appellant's proprietorship claim on the basis of possession was backed by law and in accordance with the judgments of the Supreme Court---Appeals were allowed and impugned judgment was set aside.]

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE Para — 2025 SCMR 174 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR