The court ruled that **private partitions are valid for determining land ownership**, even if not recorded in Revenue records.
اس معاملے میں جو منفرد نکتہ طے کیا گیا وہ یہ تھا کہ **زمین کے مالکان کی طرف سے کی گئی ایک نجی تقسیم، چاہے ریونیو ریکارڈ میں درج نہ ہو، ملکیت کے حصص کے تعین کے لیے درست تسلیم کیا جا سکتا ہے**۔ عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ بنیادی مسئلہ مساوی حصص میں ملکیت اور قبضے کا اعلان تھا، نہ کہ ریونیو ریکارڈ میں تقسیم کی باضابطہ شناخت۔
یہاں اہم نکات کا خلاصہ ہے:
1. **نجی تقسیم کا جواز*
*: عدالت نے تصدیق کی کہ 1963 میں تینوں بھائیوں کے ذریعے کی گئی نجی تقسیم، جو کہ سرکاری طور پر ریونیو ریکارڈ میں درج نہیں تھی، اس کے باوجود زمین میں ان کے متعلقہ حصص قائم کرنے کے لیے درست تھی۔
2. **سول کورٹ کا دائرہ اختیار*
*: عدالت نے کہا کہ سول کورٹ کے پاس ٹائٹل اور ملکیت کے معاملات پر فیصلہ کرنے کا دائرہ اختیار ہے، اس حقیقت کے باوجود کہ باضابطہ تقسیم اور ریکارڈ کے معاملات عام طور پر ریونیو افسران کے دائرہ اختیار میں آتے ہیں۔
3. **ملکیت کا ثبوت*
*: عدالت نے تسلیم کیا کہ نجی تقسیم کے معاہدوں کو ثبوتوں اور گواہوں کی شہادتوں کے ذریعے ثابت کیا جا سکتا ہے، اور ایسے شواہد ریونیو ریکارڈز میں تضادات سے قطع نظر، سول کورٹ میں ملکیت اور ملکیت کو قائم کرنے کے لیے کافی ہیں۔
یہ فیصلہ واضح کرتا ہے کہ جب کہ باضابطہ تقسیم کا طریقہ کار پنجاب لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ کے تحت چلتا ہے، پرائیویٹ پارٹیشنز اب بھی متعلقہ اور قابل اطلاق ہیں اگر ثبوت کی تائید ہو تو ملکیت کا تعین کرنے کے لیے۔
 |
| private partitions are valid for determining land ownership**, even if not recorded in Revenue records. |
نجی تقسیمِ اراضی اور ملکیت کے تعین میں اس کی قانونی حیثیت
تعارف
لاہور ہائیکورٹ ملتان بینچ کے اس فیصلے میں یہ اہم اصول واضح کیا گیا کہ زمین کی نجی تقسیم اگرچہ ریکارڈِ مال میں درج نہ بھی ہو، تب بھی وہ ملکیت اور قبضے کے تعین کے لیے قانونی طور پر قابلِ قبول اور مؤثر ہو سکتی ہے۔ عدالت نے اس امر کو تسلیم کیا کہ عملی تقسیم اور طویل عرصہ سے علیحدہ علیحدہ قبضہ بذاتِ خود ایک مضبوط حقیقت ہے جسے نظر انداز نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
پس منظرِ مقدمہ
مقدمے کے حقائق کے مطابق فریقین کے مورثین حقیقی بھائی تھے جنہیں ہجرت کے بعد مشترکہ طور پر زمین الاٹ ہوئی۔ کچھ عرصہ بعد خاندان کے سربراہ نے باہمی رضامندی سے زمین کی نجی تقسیم کر دی، جس کے بعد ہر بھائی اپنے حصے پر الگ الگ قابض اور کاشتکار رہا۔ کئی دہائیوں تک اس تقسیم پر کوئی اختلاف پیدا نہ ہوا، تاہم بعد ازاں بعض ورثاء نے اس تقسیم سے انکار کرتے ہوئے دعویٰ کیا کہ چونکہ نجی تقسیم ریکارڈِ مال میں درج نہیں، اس لیے وہ ناقابلِ قبول ہے۔
عدالتی مشاہدات
عدالت نے شواہد کا تفصیلی جائزہ لینے کے بعد قرار دیا کہ نجی تقسیم کا ثبوت معتبر گواہوں اور طویل عرصہ کے عملی قبضے سے ثابت ہو جاتا ہے۔ ہمسایہ مالکان کی گواہی اور خود مدعا علیہ کے اعترافات سے یہ حقیقت سامنے آئی کہ تقسیم کے بعد ہر فریق اپنے متعین حصے پر مسلسل قابض رہا۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ محض اس بنیاد پر کہ تقسیم ریکارڈِ مال میں درج نہیں، اس کی قانونی حیثیت ختم نہیں ہو جاتی۔
قانونی اصول
عدالت نے اس اصول کی توثیق کی کہ ملکیت کے تعین کا اختیار دیوانی عدالت کے پاس ہے۔ ریکارڈِ مال بنیادی طور پر انتظامی نوعیت کا ہوتا ہے اور حتمی طور پر ملکیت کا فیصلہ نہیں کرتا۔ اگر نجی تقسیم بطور ایک حقیقت ثابت ہو جائے تو وہ دعوائے ملکیت میں بطور شہادت قابلِ قبول ہوتی ہے، خواہ اس کی باقاعدہ اندراجی کارروائی نہ بھی ہوئی ہو۔
نتیجہ
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے واضح طور پر یہ قرار دیا کہ نجی تقسیم، اگر شواہد سے ثابت ہو، تو زمین کی ملکیت اور قبضے کے تعین کے لیے مؤثر ہے۔ اس بنیاد پر نظرثانی کی درخواست مسترد کر دی گئی اور نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کو برقرار رکھا گیا۔
اہمیتِ فیصلہ
یہ فیصلہ اس لحاظ سے نہایت اہم ہے کہ اس نے دیہی معاشرے میں رائج باہمی اور نجی تقسیم کی قانونی حیثیت کو تسلیم کیا۔ اس سے یہ اصول مستحکم ہوا کہ عملی حقائق اور طویل قبضہ، محض ریکارڈ کی خامیوں کے باعث نظر انداز نہیں کیے جا سکتے، اور انصاف کا تقاضا یہی ہے کہ حقیقت پر مبنی ملکیت کو تحفظ فراہم کیا جائے۔
Must read Judgement
ORDER SHEET.
LAHORE HIGH COURT,
MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
C. R. No. 1282 / 2016
Muhammad Ishaq, etc.
Versus
Meraj Din, etc.
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing:
19.01.2022
Petitioners By:
Mr. Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate
Respondents:
Proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 06.10.2016
and 22.12.2021.
ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, J: This Civil Revision is directed against
the concurrent Judgments and Decrees dated 16.10.2010 and 30.05.2016
passed by Civil Judge, Sahiwal and Additional District Judge, Sahiwal,
respectively, whereby, the suit for declaration alongwith permanent
injunction of the Respondents was concurrently decreed.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that the Respondents averred in the
plaint that predecessor-in-interest of the parties were real brothers who
were allotted land measuring 34-Kanals and 12-Marlas fully described in
the body of the plaint (the “Property”) in equal shares in lieu of settlement
claim after migration from India and jointly settled in Chak No. 141 / 9.L,
Tehsil and District Sahiwal. Each brother was entitled to approximately 11-
Kanals and 11-Marlas out of the Property. All the three brothers lived
together peacefully and cultivated the Property jointly and in the year
1963-1964, the elder brother Bhag Din being head of the family through a
private partition, divided the land between them and since then, each
brother and his respective family is owner-in-possession of its respective
share which was specifically described in the plaint. There was no dispute
during the life time of the brothers but after the death of predecessor-ininterest of the parties, the Petitioners in the year 1998 forcefully tried to
2
C. R. No. 1282 / 2016
dispossess the Respondents and accordingly, Revenue record was
scrutinized, whereby, it transpired that the Property is jointly owned by all
three brothers but Revenue record in the year 1949 / 1950 todate was
illegal as the share of each brother was not recorded therein equally. It was
also asserted that land measuring 9-Kanals was mortgaged at the time of
allotment and after its redemption, it also became a joint property of the
parties and is included in the Property. As such, the Respondents sought a
direction to the effect that each family of the three brothers were ownersin-possession of the Property in equal shares since inception and more so,
after private partition and accordingly, the Revenue entries in terms of their
respective equal shares are liable to be rectified being erroneously
incorporated in Jamabandi for the years 1949 / 1950, 1956 / 1957 and 1996
/ 1997 since written entries in the year 1949 / 1950 were repeated in
subsequent Jamabandi without their knowledge. Permanent injunction was
also sought against the Petitioners with respect to respective ownership and
possession of the Respondents regarding their share in the Property.
3.
The suit was resisted by the Respondents on both factual and legal
plane. It was averred that all three brothers submitted separate claims,
hence, independent allotment was made against their respective claims
which was not challenged by any party to the suit and as such, the Revenue
entries were rightly incorporated.
4.
Keeping in view the divergent pleadings of the parties, the Trial
Court framed issues on which evidence of the parties was duly recorded.
5.
The Courts below have thoroughly examined the evidence produced
by the parties. It was conclusively established that the Property jointly
belonged to the three brothers and devolved thereafter to their legal heirs.
The Property was divided through private partition in the year 1963 and
since 1964, the three brothers and their families are separately cultivating
their respective shares. The fact of private partition was duly proved
through independent witnesses who were owners of adjacent lands. Abdul
Majeed (DW-1), one of the Petitioner, admitted that it is correct that they
filed a suit with mala fide intention. He has no knowledge as to whether
Miraj Din and his legal heirs are in possession to the extent of their shares
from the date of partition since 1964. He further confirmed that since 1947
3
C. R. No. 1282 / 2016
to 14.07.2010, the Respondents never gave any share of produce to the
Petitioners. Accordingly, the claim of the Respondents was duly
established.
6.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners was confronted as to what is the
misreading and non-reading of evidence on record or as to how the
impugned Judgments and Decrees were illegal within the scope of Revision
in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He
contended that the Courts below have erred in law to recognize private
partition when the same was not incorporated in Revenue record. Any
private partition which is not incorporated in the Revenue record is not
valid and cannot be recognized and enforced by the Court in terms of
Sections 135 to 147 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (the “Act”). He
stated that the Petitioners were owners of 20-Kanals, whereas, the
Respondents are owners of 14-Kanals as the claims of each brother were
independent and as such, the revenue entries since 1949 / 1950 in the
Jamabandi could not be corrected by the Civil Court. Reliance was placed
on cases titled, “Syed Musarrat Shah and another v. Syed Ahmed Shah
alias Lal Bacha and 8 others” (P L D 2012 Peshawar 151); “Bashir
Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Akram and 3 others” (2018 C L C Note
19); “Latif Khan v. Altaf Khan and 9 others” (2018 C L C 608) and “Nazir
Ahmad (deceased) through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Rafique and 4
others” (2016 M L D 1926).
7.
Arguments heard, record perused.
8.
Chapter XI of the Act deals with formal partition of land. Section
135 of the Act provides a right to any joint owner of land who applies to a
Revenue Officer for partition of his share based on ownership and a
complete mechanism regarding partition of land is prescribed in the
following Sections of Chapter XI of the Act. Importantly, Sections 140 and
141 of the Act provide that the Revenue Officer shall ascertain the
questions, if any, in dispute between any of the persons interested in the
partition of the holding, distinguishing between questions as to title in the
land of which partition is sought and questions as to the land to be divided
or the mode of making the partition. Further, if a question of title in the
holding is raised in the partition proceedings, the Revenue Officer shall
4
C. R. No. 1282 / 2016
inquire into the substance of such question and if, the Revenue Officer is of
the opinion that the question of title raised in a partition proceedings is well
founded, he may, for reasons to be recorded, require a party specified by
him to file a suit in the competent Court, within a period not exceeding
thirty days from the date of his order for obtaining a decision regarding the
question. As such, even in formal partition proceedings under the Act, the
questions of title to the Property falls within the jurisdiction of the
competent Court. The Respondents in the instant case had in fact sought a
declaration with respect to their ownership and possession regarding the
Property in equal shares which was proved among other things through the
fact of private partition as well. It was merely used as a piece of evidence.
Therefore, the argument of learned counsel that the private partition if not
incorporated in the Revenue record is not valid as it is not a relevant
argument being not an issue in hand. The issue was regarding declaration
of title in equal shares in the Property and as such the recognition or
incorporation of private partition in terms of description of specific shares
in the Property in Revenue record was not subject matter of the suit.
9.
The overall claim of the Respondents is that since inception, the
three brothers and their families are owners-in-possession of the Property
in equal shares and in order to prove the same, one of the relevant fact was
that of private partition. In fact, Abdul Majeed, DW-1 had candidly
admitted in cross-examination that his father, Bhag Din had effected
private partition between the brothers. Further, the Petitioners could not
establish that the three brothers were allotted independent properties based
on independent settlement claims. The Judgments referred by the learned
counsel for the Petitioners are clearly distinguishable from the facts and
circumstances of this case and are of no help to the Petitioners.
10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant Civil
Revision and the same is dismissed.