Provincial Government through Chief Secretary vs Raja Liaqat Ss — 2026 MLD 869 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |

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

Provincial Government through Chief Secretary VS Raja Liaqat Ss. 42 & 52---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-- Suit for declaration and permanent injunction Concurrent findings Revisional jurisdiction of High Court Scope---Trial Court had framed specific issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recorded evidence of both sides in detail---The findings so recorded were supported by reasons and duly corroborated by oral as well as documentary evidence available on record---Perusal of the impugned judgments/decrees revealed that both the Courts below had discussed the claim of the respondent/plaintiff in the light of the evidence produced by him and had reached a concurrent conclusion that respondent/plaintiff had successfully proved his possession over the disputed property since long and that the petitioners/defendants failed to substantiate their contention that the said property formed part of the Polo-ground land or any other government land---The oral evidence of the plaintiff, supported by long and continuous possession, carried presumptive value under the law, particularly when the petitioners/defendants could not produce any documentary evidence to establish government ownership of the disputed site---Admittedly, both the Courts had concurrently decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of evidence---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts with below could not ordinarily be interfered with within the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court unless the same were found to be perverse, contrary to record, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence---Contention that the disputed property was part of an anti-encroachment drive also appeared misconceived as even in such cases, the administration was bound to follow due legal process by identifying, notifying, and that establishing encroachment in accordance with law---Record showed that no such lawful procedure had been followed before issuance of orders or commencement of demolition activity against the respondent/plaintiff---Hence, the concurrent findings did not appear to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by the High Court---Revision was dismissed.

Provincial Government through Chief Secretary vs Raja Liaqat Ss — 2026 MLD 869 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD