Zeri Gul (deceased) through L.Rs Faqir Khan and others Vs Awaty Khan and others

I

JTTDGMENT SHEET

(Judicial Department)

C.M.No.L80-8/2021.

ZenGtl (deceased) through L.Rs Faqir Khan and others Versus

Awaty Khan and others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 19.6.202F,

Forpetitioners: HafizMuhammadHanif,Advocate. For respondents: Sardar Naeem Khan, Advocate for respondents No.l, 3 to 5, 7, 8 and 10.

Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate for respondents No.16 and 17.

MUIIAMIITAD TARIO AFRIDL f.'This revision petition 4 is directed against the judgment dated 10.7.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, North Waziristan at Bannu, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 31.3.2021, of the learned Civil judge-Il, North Waziristan at Bannu, was dismissed, upholding the order that rejected the petitioners' plaint.

2.The petitioners claimed ownership over a piece of land measuring t4 V,anal 6 marla, situated in Khata No.209, Khasra Nos.87l, 877, Mouza Muhammad Khel, Tehsil Dawar, District Tochi, North Waziristan, containing minor minerals. It was averred that adjacent to this land lies a Ghair Paimuuda (unmeasured) land covered with Raghzai

(Shrubs) and mountainous terrain from which their predecessor and after his death the plaintiffVpetitioners have been benefitting from mineral extraction, entitled to nine shareso and that respondents No.l to 10 have no lawful claim over the said minerals or royalty, They accordingly prayed for a decree of declaration, permanent injunction, and mandatory injunction.

3.Upon summons, respondents No.l, 3 to 5, 7, 8, and l0 appeared and moved an application seeking rejection/retum of the plaint, arguing that the suit was barred under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mines and Minerals Governance Act, 2017, and that the civil court lacked 4 jurisdiction.

4.After hearing the parties, the leamed Civil Judge-II, vide order, dated 31.03.2021, returned the plaint under Order MI Rule 10 C.P.C.' holding that the jurisdiction of the civil courtwas expresslybarredby Section 102(6) ofthe said Act and that a specialized forum had been provided for resolution of such matters.

5.The petitioners challenged this decision througft civil appeal, which too was dismissed by the leamed Additional Distict Judge-I, vide judgment dated 10.07.2021, affirming the reasoning ofthe fiial court.

J

6.Still aggrieved, the petitioners have now filed the instant revision petition before this Court.

7.Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and the record perused with their assistance.

8.The Courts below returned the plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction ofthe civil Court was expressly barred by Section 102(6) of the said AcL However, the provisions contained in Schedule-Mll of the Act appear to be more relevant and directly applicable to the present dispute.

Schedule-VIII, titled "Special Provisions Pertaining to 4 Regulation of Mineral Resources in the Merged Disticts and Sub-Divisions," provides a comprehensive framework for dispute resolution involving mineral rights, local entiflements, and inter-tibal claims. The applicability ofthis Schedule to the present matter is further reinforced by sub-section (2) of Section I of the Acq which stipulates that the provisions contained in the Schedules shall apply in the areas formerly known as Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), now merged into the province. Clause 8 of Schedule-Vl[ specifically provides:

In case any dispute arises between the stakeholders of mineral bearing area after the grant of mineral title, the matter shall be referred to a Dispute Resolution Committee for submission of its recommendations to the Mineral Titles Committee for consideration. The Committee shall consist of the following, namely:

(a)Concemed Deputy Commissioner - Chairman. @,) A representative of the local mining association nominated by the Licensing Authority - Member.

(c/ A prominent elder of the locality nominated by the Licensing Authority - Member.

(d/ Assistant Director Minerals concemed - Member- cum-Secretary"

ln addition, Clause 9 of Schedule-VIII extends the scope of the Committee's jwisdiction, stating:

The Dispute Resolution Committee shall also recommend resolution of inter-tribal land disputes, facilitate demarcation and division of land between the sub-sections and clans as per their traditional Rewaj and settled principles of due shares. The matter may be deliberated upon by two such committees if the dispute arises between two tibal districts. The Committee or Committees may seek help of any relevant of Govemment in exercise of their duties.

Thus, the Act expressly provides for a tribal-custom based, localized dispute resolution mechanism, particularly tailored 4 for areas like North Waziristan. The nature of the petitioners' claim, grounded in faditional entiflement and mineral benefit, is precisely the type of dispute contemplated under Clauses 8 and 9.

9.Moreover, Clause 14 of Schedule-VIII clarifies:

The provisions of Section 102 ofthis Act shall apply mutatis mutandis in relation to this Schedule.

Which means that civil court jurisdiction is excluded in such matters by necessary implication, as provided under Section 102(6), and extended to Schedule-Mll by reference.

10.In light ofthe above, the courts below rightly held that the dispute was not fiable by a civil court and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum established under the Act. No illegality, material inegularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the courts below

A

warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this revision petition being devoid of merit is herebY dismissed.

Announced.

Dt:19.6.2025 Imranf TUDGE

(S.B)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice MuhammadTariq Afridi

o

3 J