 |
| Shamlat 2026 clc 239 |
📌 شملات دیہہ زمین پر قبضہ اور حکمِ امتناعی — لوکل کمیشن رپورٹ کی اہمیت
📌 تعارف
📌 پس منظر
📌 لوکل کمیشن کی رپورٹ کی حیثیت
📌 قبضہ اور قانونی تحفظ
📌 دعویٰ کی حد تک ڈگری
📌 اہم قانونی اصول
📌 نتیجہ
Must read Judgment.
2026 C L. C 239
[High Court (AJ&K)]
Before Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J
KHALID HUSSAIN through Attorney-Appellant
Versus
Mst. SHAHEEN AKHTAR and 13 others --Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2019, decided on 6th December, 2024.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-
S. 75-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 56-Suit for permanent injunction---Existence of possession and threat of land being disposed of-Report of Local Local Commission---Scope---Plaintiff pleaded pleaded in in his his p plaint that he along with proforma defendants were in possession of 20 kanals of Shamilat deh land of his village, and the defendants were flexing their muscles to dispossess them from Shamilat land Suit was concurrently dismissed Validity Record revealed that the Trial Court had appointed Local Commission. for spot inspection and report---As per report of Local Commission, the plaintiff and proforma defendants were only in possession of 3 kanals and 4 marlas of land---The Commission was appointed with the consent of the parties and the parties had not objected to the report of the Commission, thus, the report of Commission had become final and role of Commission turned into a referee: hence, both the parties were bound by its report-According to the said report, the plaintiff and proforma defendants were in possession of 3 kanals and 4 marlas of Shamilat deh land, hence, no one could be allowed to dispossess them without following foll due process of law by taking law in his hands-Thus, it was enjoined upon the Court below to decree the suit to the extent of 3 kanals and 4 marlas of land which was in possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants-High Court decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/appellant to the extent of 3 kanals and 4 marlas of Shamilat land which as per report of Local Commission was in possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants---Appeal, filed by plaintiff, was allowed accordingly.
PLD 2011 SC (AJK) 25 ref.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-
---S. 56-Suit for permanent injunction---Existence of possession and threat of being dispossessed---Shamilat land, entitlement to--Scope Plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he along with proforma aint that along with proforma defendants were possession 20 kanals of Shamilat deh land of village, and the defendants were flexing their muscles to dispossess them from Shamilat land-Suit was concurrently. dismissed Validity From the statements of witnesses produced by plaintiff as well as from the statement of attorney of plaintiff it had amply been substantiated without blemish that there was a threat of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants by the defendants but the Court below wrongly observed that the plaintiff could not prove any threat on behalf of defendants to dispossess him-Though the plaintiff could not prove his claim to the extent of 20 kanals of land but his stance to the extent of 3 kanals and 4 marlas was endorsed by evidence-A villager of the deh who was in possession of Shamilat deh land could not be dispossessed disp without following due process cess of of law and the Civil Court was fully competent to decree a suit for perpetual injunction regarding Shamilat deh land subject to legal partition of the land-High Court decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/appellant to the extent of 3 kanals and 4 marlas of Shamilat land which was in possession of plaintiff and proforma defendants-Appeal, filed by plaintiff, was allowed accordingly. (p. 242) C, D, E & F
Chaudhary Riaz Ahmed Alam for Appellant. Wajid Hussain Mirza for Respondents.