Time-Barred Suit on Land Mutations: High Court Dismisses Appellant’s Claim After 36–40 Years.
 |
| Mutation challenged 2026 clc 188 |
زمین کی میوٹیشنز پر دیر سے دائر مقدمہ: لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ (2026 C L C 188)
حقائق مقدمہ
قانونی پہلو
عدالتی فیصلہ
اہم سبق
Must read judgement.
2026 C L C 188
[Lahore]
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan and Rasaal Hasan Syed, JJ
UMAR FAROOQ ---Appellant
Versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others ---Respondents
R.F.A. No. 80638 of 2021, heard on 23rd October, 2023.
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-
-First Sched., Art. 120-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54-Transactions of mutations---Filing of suit for declaration, cancellation, possession and permanent injunction after 36/40 years-Delay in challenging the transactions/mutations---Plea of knowledge about mutations four months prior to filing the suit---Failure of the appellants to prove such plea---Effect---Dismissal of suit-Validity-All the transactions/mutations, though duly entered in the revenue record from 1971 till the filing of the suit, were not timely challenged-Predecessor of the plaintiffs had been alive for number of years but they did not challenge the transactions particularly mutations in respect of which the suit was filed by the appellants in the year 2020-Under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, (Act) a suit to challenge the mutation can he filed within six years from the date of attestation of mutation while the appellants filed the suit after more than 36/40 years from the date of mutations which on the face of it was barred by time---Plea of the appellants that they allegedly acquired knowledge of the mutations under challenge four months before the filing of the suit, the same was belied by the evidence on record-It was evident from the record beyond any doubt that appellants and their predecessors had the knowledge of transactions and mutations right from the beginning hut filed the suit after 36/40 years, thus, hadfailed to file suit within six years in terms of Art. 120 of the Act, therefore, the suit was hopelessly barred by time-Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances,
Wahid Bakhsh through legal heirs and another v. Ghulam Muhammad through Legal heirs PLD 1990 Lah. 193; Ashiq Muhammad and others v. Mst. Sugran 2023 SCMR 1171; Agha Syed Mushtaque Ali Shah v. Mst. Bibi Gul Jan and others 2016 SCMR 910 and Mst. Rabia Gul and others v. Muhammad Janan and others 2022 SCMR 1009 rel.
(b) Specífic Relief Act (1 of 1877)---
Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54 Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), 5.42(1)-Transfer of Property Act (V of 1882), S. 54 Transactions of mutations-Filing of time barred suit for declaration, cancellation, possession and permanent injunction-Failure of real owner/predecessor in interest of claimants in his life time to challenge such mutations despite having knowledge thereof Effect... Locus standi of successors to challenge such transactions/mutations Scope Where the real owner of the property who could have a cause of action to file the litigation or commence the proceedings or to challenge the act or document against his interest remained live for number of years but despite having knowledge of the transactions never raised any claim qua the property or challenged the documents of sale in respect of property, or raised the objection which was being attempted to be raised by his successors, this is not permissible as the successors will have no locus standi to question the validity of those transactions High Court affirmed the view taken by the trial court to the effect that the suit was barred by time, principle of acquiescence, waiver and estoppel and that the appellants had no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit.
Mst. Faheertian Begum (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Islam-ud-Din (deceased) through L.Rs. 2023 SCMR 1402 and Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others 2013 SCMR 299 rel.
Ch. Muhammad Gulnawaz Goraya for Appellant.
Tahrim Iqbal Butt, Assistant Advocate General with Naveed Haider, Assistant Commissioner. Muhammad Safdar Rana, Naib Tehsildar and Khurshid Ahmad Patwari Halqa, Gujranwala for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, 11 and 12.
Syed Muhammad Usman Tirmazi for Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 and 10.
Ex parte for Respondents Nos. 9 and 13 to 16.