Redemption Right in Evacuee Property – Limitation Starts from Acknowledgment, Not 1947
زمین چھڑانے کا حق (Right of Redemption) — جب حدِ معیاد 1947 سے نہیں بلکہ حق کے اعتراف سے شروع ہوتی ہے
---
پس منظر:
پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے ایک اہم مقدمے (2025 CLC 365 – Ajmal Khan vs. Sher Rehman) میں یہ اصول واضح کیا کہ اگر حکومت یا کوئی ادارہ کسی شخص کے حقِ رہائی (Redemption Right) کو تسلیم کر لے، تو حدِ معیاد (Limitation Period) 1947 جیسے پرانے واقعات سے نہیں بلکہ حق کے اعتراف کی تاریخ سے شروع ہوتی ہے۔
---
مقدمہ کے حقائق:
اجمل خان اور دیگر کی زمین ایک غیر مسلم خاتون کے نام رہن تھی جو 1947ء میں ملک چھوڑ گئی۔ حکومت نے اس زمین کو Evacuee Property قرار دے کر اپنے نام منتقل کیا اور بعد میں کسی اور کو دے دیا۔
جب وہ نیا شخص زمین کی ملکیت کا دعویٰ لے کر عدالت گیا تو اجمل خان کو معلوم ہوا کہ ان کی زمین رہن شدہ ہے، چنانچہ انہوں نے زمین چھڑانے کا دعویٰ دائر کیا۔
---
نچلی عدالتوں کا فیصلہ:
ٹرائل کورٹ اور اپیلٹ کورٹ دونوں نے کہا کہ مقدمہ وقت کی حد سے باہر ہے کیونکہ 1947 سے ساٹھ سال گزر چکے ہیں۔
---
ہائی کورٹ کا مشاہدہ:
ہائی کورٹ نے دونوں فیصلے منسوخ کر دیے اور کہا:
حکومت نے رہن داروں کو زمین چھڑانے کا نوٹس نہیں دیا، اس لیے حدِ معیاد شروع ہی نہیں ہوئی۔
1959 کے ایک سرکاری مراسلے میں حکومت نے خود درخواست گزاروں کے حقِ رہائی کو تسلیم کیا۔
قانونِ معیاد 1908 کی دفعہ 19 کے مطابق جب کسی حق کو تحریری طور پر تسلیم کر لیا جائے، تو نیا عرصۂ معیاد اسی دن سے شروع ہوتا ہے۔
اس لیے اجمل خان کا مقدمہ بر وقت (Within Limitation) تھا۔
---
عدالتی فیصلہ:
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ نچلی عدالتوں نے قانون کو غلط طور پر لاگو کیا۔
چنانچہ اجمل خان اور دیگر کا دعویٰ منظور کرتے ہوئے ان کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا گیا۔
---
قانونی اصول:
> جب حکومت یا فریقِ مخالف کسی شخص کے حق کو تحریری طور پر تسلیم کرے، تو حدِ معیاد اُس اعتراف کی تاریخ سے شروع ہوتی ہے، نہ کہ اصل تنازعہ کے آغاز سے۔
---
حوالہ:
Ajmal Khan and others vs. Sher Rehman and others, 2025 CLC 365 (Peshawar High Court)
Relied on: Muhammad Hanif v. Ghulam Rasool (2005 SCMR 1004)
Must read Judgement
2025 C L C 365
[Peshawar]
Before Ijaz Anwar, J
AJMAL KHAN and others ---Petitioners
Versus
SHER REHMAN and others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No. 05-P of 2007, decided on 13th May, 2024.
Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)---
----Ss.25(2)(l) & 25(2)(s)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.19 & First Sched. Art. 148---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54--- Declaration of title---Redemption of land mortgaged to a non-Muslim lady, who left the country at the time of partition in the year 1947---Non-issuance of notice to mortgagor to redeem the property---Effect---Limitation period, commencement of---Possession of the petitioners was not disputed---Federal Government terming the suit property as evacuee property transferred it in favour of Federal Government and then to a person respectively, who later on transferred it in favour of predecessor of respondents---Mortgage came to knowledge of the petitioners, when predecessor of the respondents instituted a suit against petitioners alleging to be the owners of the suit property, which prompted the petitioners to file a declaratory suit for redemption of the suit property---Trial Court dismissed the suit treating it to be barred by time under Art. 148 of Limitation Act, 1908---Appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of Trial Court on the ground that it was not clear that non-Muslim lady had left the country after 1947, therefore, petitioners were required to have asked for redemption of the property within a period of sixty years---Validity---Such determination of the Appellate Court was completely against the record and did not have any relevance to the present controversy for the reason that if such argument of the Appellate Court was accepted then there was no occasion for the Federal Government to have declared the suit property as evacuee and transferred it in the year, 1990, therefore, Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal on wrong premises---Powers under S.25(2)(l) of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, were delegated to the Deputy Rehabilitation and Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner to issue notice to local mortgagors to redeem the property within one month failing which the property would be liable to be auctioned under S.25(2)(s) of the Act, but the petitioners were not given any notice, as such, from the acknowledgment of the right of redemption, a fresh period of limitation would be computed for the exercise of such right in terms of S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Thus, if the period of limitation was counted from the year, 1947, still the suit of the petitioners was not barred by time---After the acknowledgement of the rights of the petitioners vide letter Memo dated 08.12.1959, a fresh period of limitation would be computed for exercise of such rights in terms of S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and as such, from the year, 1959 too, the suit of the petitioners was not barred by time---Both the Courts below had failed to consider the question of limitation in its true perspective, as suit filed by petitioners for redemption was well within time in terms of Art.148 of the Limitation Act, 1908, therefore, Civil revision was allowed and judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set-aside and the suit of the petitioners was decreed as prayed for accordingly.
Muhammad Hanif and another v. Ghulam Rasool through LRs and others 2005 SCMR 1004 rel.
Altaf Ahmad for Petitioners.
Shams-ul-Haq for Respondents.
Popular articles
No comments:
Post a Comment