Syed Ali Ahsan Vs Asif etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Syed Ali Ahsan Versus Asif etc.

S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of Proceeding Proceeding parties or counsel, where necessary. 29.09.2026 M/s Barrister Abdul Qudoos Sohal, Muhammad Ramzan Ch. and Shahid Ali Gujjar, Advocates for petitioner in the instant petition (WP No. 55521 of Mr. Abdul Hameed Chohan, Advocate for the petitioners in WP No. 55201 of 2026.

Mr. Muhammad Asif Chehal, Advocate for the petitioner in WP No. 55514 of 2026.

Mr. Dawood Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the petitioner in WP No. 55517 of 2026.

Mr. Hussain Ahmad Madni, Advocate for the petitioner in WP No. 55522 of 2026.

Sardar Muhammad Farooq Khan, Advocate for the petitioners in WP No. 57717 of 2026.

Mr. Sajid Hussain Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in WP No.55514 of 2026 (on watching brief).

Mr. Waqar Saeed Khan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab on Court’s call.

Through this consolidated order, I intend to decide the instant Writ Petition as well as connected Writ Petitions No. 55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.

FACTS

2.Through the instant petition (Writ Petition No.55521 of 2026), the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of order dated 29.08.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Punjab Property Tribunal (in short “The Tribunal”) who refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immovable Property Act,

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 2025 (CI of 2025) (hereinafter called “Act 2025”) on the ground that the parties are indulged in litigation for the last many years and presently an appeal between the same parties regarding the same land is admittedly pending before a learned Additional District Judge. In terms of the impugned order, the Tribunal opined that it could not issue any order regarding dispossession of the respondents from the suit property.

3.In Writ Petition No.55201 of 2026, the petitioners have assailed the veracity of order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed as being not maintainable in the presence of civil litigation regarding the same property on the ground that the appropriate course for the petitioner was to make an application before the learned Civil Court under Section 16(11) of the Act 2025 contending therein that the case should be heard by the Tribunal.

4.Through Writ Petition No.55514 of 2026, the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.07.2026 whereby the Tribunal refused to exercise the powers vested in it under the Act 2025 on the ground that the petitioner was a co-owner/co-sharer in joint holdings, which had never been formally partitioned, therefore, the petitioner could not claim grant of possession of any specific portion out of the joint holdings.

5.In Writ Petition No.55517 of 2026, the petitioner has thrown challenge to order dated 23.07.2026, whereby the Tribunal concluded that the complaint was premature and not maintainable on the ground that civil litigation was pending amongst the parties, wherein the respondents alleged that they were in possession of the

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 suit land under the tenancy of another co-sharer; that sufficient particulars to identify the immovable property and establish lawful ownership of the complainant were lacking and a co-sharer could not claim grant of possession qua any specific portion of the joint holdings.

6.By way of Writ Petition No.57717 of 2026, the petitioners have assailed the validity of order dated 27.08.2026, whereby the Tribunal directed the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala to take necessary steps in accordance with law in order to get the portions of the property found to be under unauthorized occupation vacated in the light of fresh report of the District Scrutiny Committee, which reported that one Mubashir Ahmed and Muhammad Ahmed (not the writ petitioners) are in possession of Khasra Nos.827/2 and 828/2, inspite of the fact that their names were not reflected as recorded owners in a family partition sanctioned through Mutation No.3777 dated 25.07.2023.

7.In Writ Petition No.55522 of 2026, order dated 31.07.2026 passed by the Tribunal has been assailed, whereby it refused to take cognizance of the complaint, as the petitioner alleged that respondents had encroached upon the petitioner’s adjacent property, while concluding that only the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction could determine whether any encroachment had been made by respondents or not.

ARGUMENTS

8.In Writ Petitions No.55521 and 55201 of 2026, learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submit that under Section 7(3) of the Act 2025, the initial procedure is provided, wherein it is the requirement of law that within 03 days of the receipt of a complaint, the Tribunal

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 shall refer it to the Committee for prompt summons, hearing, and encouraging and facilitating an amicable resolution thereof and submission of its report within 30 days of referral thereto but the Tribunal did not adopt the procedure provided in Section 7(3) of the Act 2025, rather dismissed the complaint in limine without dispatching the same to the Committee. They contend that the legislature intentionally used the word “shall”, which made the provision mandatory and it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to refer the complaint to the Committee for probe and scrutiny. It is argued that Section 4 of the Act 2025 provides punishment to an accused who, whether himself or through any other accused, obtains or retains possession of any immovable property without lawful authority or lawful means. Learned counsel have added that the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the ambit of the Act 2025 but the Tribunal failed to exercise such jurisdiction as vested in it. It is alleged that under Section 15 of the Act 2025, the Tribunal is invested with the powers of a Civil Court and the Court of Sessions and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are also made applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal to extend its jurisdiction, as under this provision, the Tribunal has all the powers of a Civil Court or the Court of Sessions. Refers to sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 16 of the Act 2025 which clearly provide that the Tribunal has jurisdiction regarding any alleged offence with respect to the ownership or illegal possession of an immovable property and that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question of

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 title regarding the immovable property being subject matter of the case.

9.In Writ Petition No.57717 of 2026, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the petitioners are not in illegal possession of the disputed property which has been transferred to some other persons, who are in peaceful possession over there. Further argues that the record obtained from the Scrutiny Committee is against the real facts of the case and an appeal regarding the property in question is pending before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala in which a temporary injunction regarding the property in dispute has also been passed.

10.In Writ Petition No. 55522 of 2026, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that consecutive revenue records depict that respondent No.5, Muhammad Shafiq is in illegal possession of land measuring 01 Marla 34 Sq.ft., whereas respondent No.1, Zawar Hussain Shah, is in illegal possession of land measuring 11 Marlas 37 Sq.ft. and that the observations made by the Tribunal are out of context as well as against the provisions of the Act 2025.

11.In Writ Petition No.55514 of 2026, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal, without applying judicious mind, passed the impugned order in a hasty manner without taking into consideration the title documents of the petitioners. Adds that respondents No.2 and No.3, with mala fide intention and ulterior motives, that too with the connivance of the revenue staff, entered the name of predecessor of the petitioner and showed themselves as sons of the petitioner. Further submits that the Tribunal did not adopt

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 the procedure provided under the Act 2025 regarding the complaint of the petitioner and straightaway dismissed the complaint in limine. Argues that the Tribunal was under an obligation to follow the procedure provided under Section 7 of the Act 2025 and should have taken cognizance even if the petitioner was co-owner/ co-sharer in the joint holdings which have not been formally partitioned.

12.In Writ Petition No.55517 of 2026, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the complaint was dismissed by the Tribunal on wrong premises that no formal partition has ever taken place regarding the land situated in Khewat No.108 and the respondents had already filed a civil suit which is pending before the learned Civil Court wherein it was alleged by them that they were in possession of the suit property under the tenancy of another co-sharer. Submits that respondents are strangers to the relevant Khewats and are not co-sharers therein but the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the complaint in limine by declaring it premature and not maintainable. Places reliance on Qaiser Jabbar v. Syed Mati Ullah Shah and others (PLD 2026 SC 333).

13.Though notice was not issued to the adversaries, yet in Writ Petition No.55514/2026, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, with the permission of the Court, argues that the disputed property is still an undivided/joint holding and as such the Tribunal has rightly refused to exercise its jurisdiction in the petitioner’s complaint being incompetent and premature. Submits that the situation would have been different if Wandajat had explicitly been made and

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 finalized in favour of the petitioner showing the clear specification and surrounding details of his property.

14.Learned Law Officer also supports the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and states that the same were passed while applying judicious mind and prays for dismissal of the instant as well as connected petitions being meritless.

15.Heard. Record perused.

FINDINGS

16.I have considered the respective submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of each petition. Although the factual matrix and the grounds urged in the respective petitions are identical to some extent but not ditto, yet the controversy involved therein substantially revolves around the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Act 2025. It would, therefore, be appropriate to examine the controversy on the touchstone of those common questions rather than dealing with each argument separately, as doing so may result in repetition and overlapping. The findings recorded herein shall thereafter be applied to the facts of the respective petitions, wherever necessary.

17.The argument of learned counsel with regard to the mandatory scrutiny in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act 2025 is misconceived, as its scrutiny by the Committee would take place only if the Tribunal proceeds further. Section 7(2) of the Act 2025 provides that a complaint shall include sufficient particulars to identify the immovable property, material facts alleged to constitute an offence under the Act 2025 and evidence of lawful

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 title or lawful ownership, as the case may be. No Court or Tribunal could be made hostage to the filing of an incompetent complaint and every jurisdiction exists to nip an incompetent and non-maintainable case in the bud at the earliest without going into the procedure any further.

18.It is provided in Section 16(11) of the Act 2025 that where any case involving illegal possession of immovable property is pending before any Court or Tribunal other than the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan or Lahore High Court, a lawful owner may file an application before such Court or Tribunal for transfer of the said case to the Tribunal and such Court or Tribunal, after evaluating the record of the case and hearing all the persons concerned, “if it is satisfied” that the case prima facie falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, shall transfer the said case to the Tribunal.

19.Section 16(11) of the Act 2025 is provided to avoid conflicting judgments between the same parties regarding the same subject matter and it is not made mandatory by the Court upon the application for transfer of the case to the Tribunal, rather it is provided that if the Court is satisfied that the case prima facie falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, then it will transfer the said case, which clearly depicts that satisfaction of the Court before which the case is pending is sine qua non. It is not provided in any provision of the Act 2025 that proceedings could be run simultaneously.

20.It is a settled principle of law that harmonious interpretation of the statute is to be made while keeping

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 in view all the provisions instead of sticking to one provision.

21.Apart from it, under Section 9 CPC, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction in every civil matter unless its jurisdiction is specifically barred. It has an ultimate jurisdiction to judge and decide all matters. It is nowhere provided in the Act 2025 that the jurisdiction of other Courts is curtailed which is otherwise vested in them.

22.Section 15 of the Act 2025 empowers the Tribunal with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to regulate its procedure and it does not mean that all the substantive powers and jurisdiction have been transferred to it. The Tribunal cannot exercise its jurisdiction in uncertainty where the particulars of the property to identify it are missing, as undivided ownership with specific Khasra numbers can mislead the Tribunal. Exclusive jurisdiction provided under special statutes can neither be taken away through the Act 2025 nor is it the intention of the legislature.

23.There is no gain saying the fact that the procedure provided in the Act 2025 for regulating the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is summary in nature whereas Sections 4 and 5 of the Act 2025 relating to offences and punishments thereof are to be tried while adopting the procedure provided in Chapter XXII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

24.It is mandatory, as provided in the preamble, that the complainant should be a lawful owner of the immovable property and under Section 7(2) of the Act 2025, the complaint shall also include details of property, evidence of lawful title and particulars of the offender as

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 the case may be. In this provision, lawful title means lawful ownership which is unambiguous and uncloudy.

25.In the petitions relating to joint holdings, the Tribunal rightly refused to exercise the jurisdiction which was not vested in it. This Court is of the view that in an undivided and joint property, every co-sharer is deemed to be the owner of every inch of the whole Khewat. Therefore, the property of joint owners without partition cannot be identified.

26.As regards the question of title, the Act 2025 articulates that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to also decide the question of title of the immovable property being the subject matter of the case amongst the parties before it. Nevertheless, it does not mean by any stretch of imagination that the Tribunal is having parallel jurisdiction amongst the parties regarding the same subject matter and the parties can simultaneously get the ultimate relief by availing both the remedies without getting it transferred to the Tribunal under Section 16(11) of the Act 2025.

27.In cases of encroachment by the owners of adjoining properties, the Tribunal has no power to determine the encroachment, as such power is vested in the Civil Court as well as the Revenue Courts, as the case may be, and no procedure is provided in the Act 2025 for determination of such encroachment, as the same is summary in nature as for approaching the Tribunal, clear lawful ownership is sine qua non.

28.The arguments of learned counsel are misconceived to the effect that, in cases of encroachment, the Tribunal can appoint a Local Commission. If this argument is accepted, then it becomes a civil litigation, as

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 in civil cases, if a Local Commission is appointed, then objections are also sought and offered over its report, and, to prove his report, a Local Commissioner has to give evidence under oath and face cross-examination. If this Court accepts this argument of learned counsel, it will amount to amending the provisions of the Act 2025 and changing the summary procedure into a full-fledged trial. It will also tantamount to the addition of provisions which have not been introduced by the legislature.

29.In Writ Petition No.55522 of 2026, with regard to encroachment, the alleged revenue reports relied upon by learned counsel can neither be made the basis for deciding against the respondents nor were those sought by the Tribunal and even they are not proved documents which may fulfil the strict criteria of lawful ownership as mentioned in the Act 2025.

30.The jurisdiction provided to the Tribunal through the Act 2025 is also criminal in nature, as the Tribunal can award punishment to an accused who is guilty of an offence of illegally possessing or retaining an immovable property without lawful authority, therefore, proof for attracting the provisions of the Act 2025 is required to the hilt. Hence, Sections 3 and 13 of the Act 2025 respectively are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act 2025 and not otherwise.

31.Although it is provided in Section 8(2) of the Act 2025 that the Committee may record statements of persons appearing before it through the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned, yet these statements recorded before the Scrutiny Committee are intended to facilitate the Tribunal in obtaining a true picture and

Writ Petition No. 55521 of 2026

Connected cases:

Writ Petitions No.55201, 55514, 55517, 55522, 57717 of 2026 sketch of the dispute, and they cannot be equated with evidence under oath before other Courts.

32.With regard to the summary procedure, in the preamble of the Act 2025, a mechanism has been provided for expeditious resolution of disputes arising between the parties. The jurisdiction is with regard to clear title, as the words “lawful ownership” are used in the preamble and “lawful owner” is used in Section 7 of the Act 2025. Where the ownership is ambiguous, definitely, the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction under the Act 2025.

33.In Writ Petition No.55517 of 2026, the judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, wherein it is provided that, due to the dual nature of civil and criminal liabilities, proceedings can proceed simultaneously and the observation made by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan is exclusively with regard to the relevant law applicable in that case and its procedure. Therefore, due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the judgment is distinguishable.

34.As an irrefutable corollary and ramification of the observations supra, the instant petition as well as connected petitions have no legs to stand. Dismissed in limine.

Signed (MALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN)

07.10.2026 JUDGE

Abis Ali

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

JUDGE