M. Yuonas Vs Malik M Javed

Judsment Sheet

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, ABBOTTABAD I}ENCH.

JUIYCUL DI'PIRTM}iNT CRNo.152-A of 2011

JUDGMENT

l)oteolhearing .........18/09/2018............ ,4ppellont ... (l,[uhommatl Yctunas) by lloja ),ayyaz Ahmad. ,4dvocote llcspondent ...(ltlalik lluhammad ,Iaved) hy lt{ll. Muhammad lurungzeh Zahid. ,,1dyoc a Ic

SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIOUE SHAH, .I

'l'hc instant rcvision pctition is dircctcd againsl thc judgmcnt and dccrce dalcrJ21l02l2017 passcd by lcarncd Additional I)istrict Judgc-V, Manschra, whcrcby, appcal trlcd by thc rcspondcnts against thc judgmcr.rt and dccrcc datcd 17.12.2015 passed by lcarncd Civil Judgc-V, Manschra in suit No.335ll ol 2012, was acccplcd and judgmcnl and dcorcc o1'thc lcamcd trial (lourt wcrc sct asidc.

2.Ilricf and csscntial lacts lcading to filing ol- prcsent rcvision pctilion arc thal thc rcspondcnts/ plainl"il'ls instilutcd a suit lol dcclaral-ion to lhc cll'cci thal" thcy arc'Ilissadar' owncrs in'Khasra 'Nos.64t] and657,

mcasuring 16 'Kanals' 05 'Marlas ' situatcd in ' Mauza' (iharaia and thcy arc cntitled 1o usc land 'Shamilat l)eh' Khasra No.5 l4 conliguous to thcir propc(y as pcr 'Waj ib-ul-lrz' prcparcd in thc ycar 1946-47, whcrcas, thc pctitioncr/dcl'cndanl has no right 1o lakc posscssion o1- sard'Shamilat Deh' or to makc construction thcrcon or to changc its naturc, to makc plantation, or to obslruct path of thc propcrly olthc rcspondcnts or to intcrfbrc in any way whatsocvcr in thcir rights to causc thcm loss and claim of pctitioncr/defendanl rcgarding his owncrship and possession ovcr 'Shamilal Deh' c<>nttguo us to thc propc(y of thc rcspondcnts is wrong, againsl" law and bascd on malafidc, which is incffcclivc upon thcir rights 'l'l.rc rcspondcnts/plaintiffs also praycd lor pcrmancnt injunction against thc pclitioncr and posscssion o1'thc suit propcrty was also sought by thctn. 'l'hc pctitioncr' was summoncd by thc leamcd lrial Cour1, who contcstcd the said suit by submitting his writtcn statcmcnt thcrcby raising lactual as wcll as lcgal objcctions i'hc divcrgcnt plcadings of thc partics wcrc reduccd into thc tbllowing

I SSUCS:

'I,S,SUE,S

Whether plainli/Ji have gol cause o/ crclion lo file lhe inslanl suil'l

2.Whelher plainti/Ji ore stopped lo sue? -1. Whether instant suit is maintainable in ils present ./orm?

4.Il/hether inslanl suil is bad due lo mi"'-.ioinder and non-joinder oJ lhe necessary parlies'?

5.Whether fitrefathers of the defendanl are lhe original owners of the villctge Gharala and lhtts defendant is entitled to take benefit from the Shamilat land'?

6.Whelher plaintifii can use lhe shamilat land by excluding t he defendant?

7.Ilhether plaintffi are entitled lo the decree as praved .for?

8.ltelieJ? "

) Iloth thc parlics produccd cvidcncc in suppofl ol thcir rcspcctivc claims, as thcy wishcd to adducc. 'l'hc lcamed Lrial Courl a ltcr hcar ing argulncnts ol'thc lcarncd counscl for the pa(ics dismisscd thc suit ol' thc rcspondcnts/plaintilTs vidc judgmcnt and dccrcc datcd l7ll2l20l5. 'l'hc said lindings ol thc lcancd [rial (]ourt wcrc challcngcd by thc rcspondcnts bclorc thc lcarncd Appcllatc Court/Additional I)istrict Judgc-V, Manschra, who whilc acccpting thcir appeal vidc hcr judgrncnt and dccrcc datcd 2110212017, sct asidc thc findings ol'thc lcarncd trial Court and dccrccd thc suit o1' thc rcspondcnts/plaintifl.s as praycd for. I lcncc, thc prcscnt rcvisron pctltron.

4 Argumcnts o1' lcamcd counscl lbr thc partics hcard and rccord ol casc pcruscd with thcir ablc asststancc.

-5 llcforc diiating upon thc mcrits o['thc instant casc, this Court would dccm it propcr 1cl discuss Lhc Icrm 'Shamilal Deh', ils naturc and usc; and signilicancc of' thc cntrie s ol 'LVajib-ul-Arz' .

'l'he lcrm 'Shamilat' has bccn dcfincd in scction 2 o[ thc Khybcr l)akhtunkhwa Land I)ispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinancc, 1959, (Wcst l'}akistan Ordinance No.l of 1959), which rcads as follows:

"2. DeJinilion:- In this Ordinance, unless there is anylhing repugnanl in lhe subject or conlexl, the erpression "Shamilat" tneans land described as such in the llecctrd rl llights, and lhe land so described, shall be deemed to be Shamilat, notwilhslanding lhal the whole or a parl o/ il is in lhe possessk.tn of one or more rtf lhe proprielors in the estate, or of any other person."

'l'hc said dcfinition <tf 'Shamilat lantl' has luflhcr bccn claboratcd by this Courr in Syed Azhar Hussain Sltnh's case (2016 YLR 1489), in thc lollowing manncr "shamilat Land has been defined us a lracl oJ huge land, collectively owned by lhe village owners ovcr which they would huve a right either lo reclaim the land themselves or allow others alstt ttt tlo so. T'he original owners were calletl us "Altt Maliks" und others who had reclaimed the luntl h,ith their consent were called "Adno Malik'. The Ala Malik had right to bring /urther Shamilat wssle hntl under cultivution by digging wells or otlopting

some other means. In cerlain cases even Atlna Maliks would have right to expond the urea of their ownership by recalling "Shumilut land". However, an Adnu Malik uulrl not allow stranger to hring lhe Shumilat land under cultivation. Persons who had reclaimed land as Adna Maliks as well as those who had been transJbrred rigltts only lo a piece of land (without the right to Shamilat lands) were culled "Malik Qabza".

ln casc Lrtlcd " Firdos Khan and others Vs. Zain Muhammttd and others (2011 MLD 521), it was obscrvcd by this Court in thc lollowing words "Shamilat Deh(village common luntl) heing joint und un-partitioned- valitlily....Persons recorded in proprietury hody oJ' village would he entitled ttt Shamilal Deh to the exlent oJ lheir respective proprietary holding in village...Any of such persons crtultl cluim possession only through parlition o./ entire Shamilat Deh, but nol olherwise."

ln Hoji Qudrat's case (1993 SCMR 381) it has bccn mcntioncd that

"The village common lund comprises the Shamilal-deh, including, the uncultivaled (banjar) and pasture lands, the uhtrdi or inhsbited village site and the gora-deh or vucanl space reserved Jbt extension oJ t he village dwellings, arul adioining lhe vilhge site."

In vicw of thc abovc dicta of thc supcrior Courts, it ts obvious lhat 'Shamilat ' is un-partitioned, hugc and largc

tracl of land,, which is collcctivcly owncd by thc ploprictary body of thc villagc, who arc cntillcd to gct bcncllts thcrcfrom in tcrms of cntrics ol' ' Ll/aiib-ul-,4 rz' 6 Now advcrling towards thc significancc ol- cnl-rics ol 'll/ttjib-ul-Arz' with rcgard to managcmcnt ol' 'Shamilat I)ch' of thc villagc. ln Haii Qudral's case (sttpra), thc I bn'blc Apcx Court has claboratcly highlightcd thc naturc and scopc o1'thc said docurncnt by rc1-crring to various manuals in thc lblkrwing lnanncr "This is the village administration paper; il conlains a specffication of villuge cusloms, rules of' managemenl and everylhing alfecting the governmenl oJ'the estale, the dislribution of proJits, irrigation, and ril4hts in the woste."

"The wajib-ul-arz,, or village atlministration paper, shoultl he a record ol existing customs regarding rights und liahililies in lhe eslale."

The paper tleckrring the customs tnd contoining the Code oJ'rules Jor the Julure management of the manor (called nttw the administration paper) is always considered a mosl imporlunl document."

"The state of the customs respecting righls untt liubilities on the estate shall he in ntrrstive form; it shall he rc hrieJ as lhe nature oJ the subiect udmits, and shull not be argumenlative, hut shall he conJined kt u simple statement oJ the customs wlticlt sre oscerlained to exist. The sfutemenl shall be clivitletl into paragruphs numhered consecutively, euch paragraph descrihing as nearly as may be separate custom."

In casc Lttlcd 'SuJdar Hussain vs. Muhammotl Azam Kltan' (PLD 2009 Lahorc 347), whilc discussing proccdurc lbr prcparation ol 'Wajib-rrl-Arz' tn accordancc with paragraph 7.4 (lt) ol'tl.rc Land Ilccolds Manual has observcd thal:

"/[/ajibul Arz, prepared hy a puhlic servanl us ubove, at the time of settlement, ctrries statutory presumption oJ correclness altuched to it. llajihul Arz, descrihes tlte righl sand linbilities smong the villogers inler se, such as enjoyment o;f proceerls ttf common lund and rights oJ gruzing on common lanel etc."

ln 'Mst. Bhag Bhari etc Vs. MsL Bhugun antl unolher' (Pl,D 1954 Lahorc 356), it has bccn obscrvcd that "Entries in a Waiib-ul-arx, may be t$ two kinds. They may be statements of local custom or usa$e or they mty bc recituls ttJ' ugreemenls. As slatements ol cuslont or ustge they are strong evidence tt the existence of such cuslom or usuge but lhey have only an evidentiarY vulue.

Agreements incorporateel in the llaiib-ul- orz ore however binding but only on the purties lo the agreements, and even in such coses it is open to a purty to prove thal in litcl no such ugreemenl was enlered into though the task would be tlilJicult."

'l'hc cumulativc c1lcct ol' thc lbrcgoing discussion is that. 'llaiib-ul-Arz.' is a basic documcnt prcparcd by a pubtic scrvant a[ thc timc o [- scttlcmcnt on t

tt

thc basis ol usagcs, local customs and agrccmcnls bctwccn thc proprictary body of villagc, which cart Lcs statulory prcsumption oll corrcctncss, and dctcrmincs thc rights, dutics and liabilitics of thc villagcrs intcr sc and Iunhcr providcs mcchanism lbr thc managcmcnt o1'thc cornrnon land (Shamilat Deh) by thc proprictary body oi' thc villagc.

8 Now coming 1o thc mcrits ol' thc pt'cscnt, casc, it lranspircs from pcrusal ol rccord that rcspondenls/plainti l'l.s soughl dcclaration rcgarding usc ol 'shamilat Deh' larul contiguous to thcir propcrty in vtcw of cntries in 'Wajib-ul-Arz' lor thc ycar 1946-41 and challcngcd thc right ol'usc of said'Shontilal'land by thc pctitioncr on thc ground that hc is no1 contiguous owncr 1o thc said land. 'l'hc rcspondcnts/plaintiffs rccordcd statcmcnt ol 'Patwari llalqa' as PW-l , who brought on rccord'liard ,lamabandis' (lrx.l'W l/l and lrx.l'}W 1/2), 'Kl'tasra Girdawari' (lrx.l'W l/3), Mutation No 974 datc<l 23.Ott.1961 (lix.PW 114) and'l[s' (Ix.l'}W I/5) Mutation No.2016 (lJx.I']W 1l16), 'Khctsra Girdawari' portaining ttt 'Khasra' No.5l4 (Shatnilat Deh) liom 15.09.2010 1o 12.10.2010 (lix.PW llD-4) 'Scttldar' OfJice Kanortngo' rccordcd his statcmcnt as I)W-2, who

brought on rccord 'ltard Misl-i- l lctq iat' (lrx.l'W 211 awi lrx.I'}W 212),'Wajib-ul-,4r2' for thc ycar 1904-05 and 1946-47 (lix.PW 213 and Ilx.PW 2/4), respcctivcly. '1'hc plainti I ls/rcspondcnts thcmsclvcs appcarcd as I'W-4 and I'W-5, whilc thcy al.so produccd IIaq Nawaz as PW-3 in support of thcir stancc. 'l'hc pctitioncr/ dcfcndant, Muhammad Younas in supporl ol his casc produccd ' Patwctri I lalqa as DW- I , who ptocluccd ' l;ard .lamabandis' (lix.DW 1/1 and l'lx.l)W 112) and'Khasrct Girdawari' (lix.DW 1/3), Muhammad lrarid @W-2) appcarcd 1cl supporl thc casc of thc pctitioncr, whilc pctitioncr hin-rsclf appcarcd as I)W-3.

9.ndmillcdly, Malik Muhammad Javcd, rcspondcnt No.l/plaintiff is original owncr in villagc Gharala sincc his lalhcr, as is cvidcnt ftr>m ' Shaj ra Nctsib' copy lix.PW 2/1. Whilc, Sardar Muhammad Ayu b, respondent No.2/plaintifl' claimcd his owncrship in 'shamilctt'land bearing 'Khasra ' No.5l4 on thc basis ol- nrulation No. 974 attcstcd on 2310811961 (lrx.l'W 2/7)' 'l'hc only disputc bctwccn thc parlics is rcgarding posscssion and usc ol 'Shamilat' land. It is scttlcd law thal thc right to usc 'Shamilal' land by thc co-shalcrs is to bc dctcrn-rincd through cntrics tncntioncd in 'Wuiib-ul'

l0

lrz' . ln this casc copics of 'Wajib'ul-lrz' ol villagc Gharala wcrc broughl on rccord through SOK (l'W-2) as lrx.l'W2/3 and Irx.l'W 214. ll has clcarly bccn rncntioncd in'Wajib-ul Arz' ,inler alia,, Lhal'Shctmilat 'land shallbc cultivatcd and managcd by thc co-sharcrs, which is contiguous to thcir land, howcvcr, 'Dakhilkars' and 'Ghoir Dakhilkars' arc not allowcd to cuhivatc thc said land withoul prior conscnt and pcrmission o['thc owncrs.

AdmiLtcdly, thc rcspondcnts/plainti Il.s arc adjaccnt owncrs ol Lhc'Shamilat' land bcaring 'Khasra ' No.5l4.

'l'hc conliguity ol' 'Khasra' Nos.64U and 657, which arc ownccl by the respondents, with 'Khasra' No.5l4 (Shamitat Deh), was no1 disputcd by thc

pctitioncr/dcfcndant and prcl'crcntial or supcrior right to tsc 'Shamilat ', as pcl' cntrics ol' 'Ilctlib-ul-lrz' has bccn givcn to contiguous owncrs. It is also an admittcd f'act thal thc propcrly of pctitioncr/dclcndant is no1 contiguous to disputcd ' Khasra' No.514, howcvcr, hc alongwith othcrs has bccn shown in posscssion ol'Shamilat l)eh' to thc cxtcnt of 4 'kanals' 15 ' Mctrlas ', according to 'l'hus, hc has ri1'htlv 'Khcr"'ro Girdawari' lix.l)W l/3.

bcon hclcl cntitlcd by thc lcarned Appcllatc Coutl to usc that n-ruch arca which is in his posscssion and hc is not t

II

cntitlcd l-o inlcrl'crc in thc posscssion of contiguous owncrs i.c. rcspondcnls/ plaintills

t0 I(ccping in viciv, [l-r c abovc statcc] lacts, circumstanccs and thc discussion madc thcrcupon, this court reachcs a1 thc conclusion that thc lindings o['thc lcarncd Appcllatc Court arc bascd on plopcr applcciation of cvidcncc and matcrial available on rccord ol'thc casc, thcrcforc thc samc nccds not to bc inlcrfcrcd with by this Court in its I{cvisional jurisdiction undcr scction ll5 (ll)C. Ilcncc, thc prcscnt tcvision pctiLion bcing bercit ol mcrits is dismisscd. No ordcr as [o costs.

Announccd Dt.18.09.2018.

t/}l&!s!1/* .,KA a