Presented by:

Muhammad Suleman Ghumman

ADDL: DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SAMBRIAL
ABADI DEH
1. SECTION 42 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT

Discretion of Court as to declaration of

status or right Bar to such declaration.

42. Any person entitled to any legal character,

or to any right as to any
property, may institute a suit against any
person denying, or interested to
deny, his title to such character or right, and
the Court may in its discretion
make therein a declaration that he is so
entitled, and the plaintiff need not in
such suit ask for any further relief:
2. WHO MAY FILE SUIT:-

Any person entitled to any

legal character, or to any
right as to any property,
may institute a suit
• 4. AGAINST WHOM:-
Who is denying, or
interested to deny, his title
to such character or right,
5. What is declatory decree:-
• the Court may in its discretion make
therein a declaration that he is so
entitled
• the court may declare the title,which
the plaintiff had already had.
• Nothing is to be sought or recovered
from the defendant.
6. Khasra abadi
&
shajra abadi

are proof to claim the

right
 7. KAL DIN vs MANZOOR AHMAD (1989 CLC 2148).
• West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 ---S. 39--Dispute relating to ownership of
house situate in abadi deh –
• -Plaintiff by non-production of either excerpts of Shajra abadi or
Khasra abadi prepared during course of Settlement operations with regard to the
areas lying within the abadi s of villages failed to prove his entitlement to
property in dispute.
• Khasra abadi contains accurate account of all the units in a village abadi ,
detailing their different shapes along with full measurements of all the straight or
angular sides of each unit.
• In Shajra-abadi are entered full particulars of the owners and occupants of
various units as also the nature of construction if any existing thereon, with
reference to the Khasra numbers mentioned in the other record.
• Combined reading of the two provides complete data about the properties
which forms infallible basis for identification of each one of the units
m abadi through measurements carried out at the spot.
• During the last about one and quarter century at least three, and at places
even four, regular settlements have taken place in the Punjab and therein these
records are also revised to be brought upto date like those of the agricultural
lands
8. RASHEED MASIH vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Deputy
Commissioner/Collector Sialkot (2011 YLR 2020)
• S. 42---Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration along with permanent
injunction on the ground that they were in possession of disputed
property since three generations---
• Defendants contested suit and asserted that the disputed property
belonged to the christian community but the plaintiffs wanted to usurp
the same under the garb of present suit---
• Trial Court dismissed suit of the plaintiffs---Appellate Court upheld
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court---
• Validity---Contention of the plaintiffs that disputed land was
situated in abadi deh and no record was maintained in respect
of abadi deh was misconceived because the relevant record viz.,
Aks abadi and Shajraabadi remained available with the circle Patwari as
well as in the office of Sadar Qanungo---Both courts below had
confirmed that the plaintiffs were out of possession and the disputed
land belonged to the christian community---Plaintiffs had failed to point
out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned
judgments and decrees---Revision petition was dismissed by High Court
in limine
9. MUHAMMAD GULZAR Vs. NAZIR
AHMAD ( PLD 1960 LAHORE 504)
Evidence Act 1872 ------Ss. 35 & 114-Khasra and
Shajra abadi of a village prepared in 1860 falls
under S. 35-Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of
1887), S. 44

35. Making of that part of the annual record

which relates to other persons: -

44. Presumption in favour of entries in Records-

of-rights and annual records:
 10. PROPRITERS OF VILLAGE
• AZMAT AZIZ-UR-REHMAN vs BASHIR AHMAD (2005 YLR 2117)
• S. 8---Suit for possession with mesne profits on basis of
ownership---Suit property was a Khasra Number owned by the plaintiffs
and recorded in Revenue Record as "abadi deh "—
• -Defendant had alleged that suit property was "abadi deh "
and he occupied the same since 1947 as refugee and property was
evacuee property---Suit was concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court as
well as Appellate Court---
• Validity---Copies of Revenue Record placed on file by both the
parties revealed that property was a "Khasra Number" and was owned by
individual owner and not collectively owned by village proprietary body---
• Defendant had not shown or pleaded that he
was a village proprietor---Separate record was maintained for
the suit property---Courts below had misread the evidence on record---
Judgments and decrees of both the Courts were set aside and suit was
decreed in circumstances
 11. Mst. IMTIAZ BIBI vs Malik ATTIQUR
REHMAN (2005 YLR 167)
LAHORE-HIGH-COURT
•. S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for possession on
basis of ownership ---abadi deh ---Village proprietary body---Adverse
possession--Permissive possession---
• Suit for possession on basis of title was dismissed by the Trial Court
but was decreed by Appellate Court---
• Validity---Plaintiff had proved, by producing copies of Jamabandi,
that the suit property was owned by his ancestors--Pedigree-table was
produced to prove relationship---To prove asserted adverse possession
no evidence was. produced--Possession admittedly was permissive—
• Permissive possession can never mature into a title---
"abadi deh " is owned by village proprietors---
• Findings of Appellate Court were absolutely in consonance with the
evidence on the file and the law applicable---Revision petition was
dismissed in circumstances
 12. PROPERTY OF ABADI DEH CAN NOT BE
CALLED AS STATE LAND
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs KHUDA
BAKHSH(2003 CLC 1220)
• ----S. 8---Suit for possession on the basis of title---Suit was decreed by
Trial Court but decree was upset by the Appellate Court—
• -Patwari Halqa admitted in cross-examination
that the land was a part of abadideh which was
not State land; and that the said land could not be identified at
the spot because there was neither any mutation nor any record of
delivery of possession of the alleged allotted land—
• Held, since neither any order of allotment, nor that of delivery
of possession under the alleged allotment was produced, finding of
Appellate Court that petitioner had failed to prove his case was
unexceptionable
 13. "BASHINDGAN" AND
"MALIKAN OF ABADI DEH "
• BASHIR AHMED vs Mst. TAJA BEGUM
( PLD 2010 SUPREME-COURT 906)
• "Bashindgan" and "Malikan of abadi deh "---
Distinction---
• Term bashindgan not equivalent of malikan---
• Term bashindgan would mean all those being
residents of a village and part of abadi deh ---
• Malikan in an estate could not only be treated as
resident of a village
14. DECIDED SUIT FOR DECLRATION.
AMANAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD AZEEM through Legal
heirs(2007 MLD 1896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOR

s. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---

Plaintiff, in the suit had claimed that they were in possession of land
as owners which formed part of "abadi deh ' and that defendants should
be restrained from denying their ownership and interfering in their
possession---Defendants contested the suit—
-Most important issue framed was about the ownership of plaintiffs in respect
of land in dispute---
Parties produced their evidence and the Trial Court on basis of appreciation of
evidence, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs had proved themselves to be the
owners---
• Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the decree was confirmed in
appeal---
Validity---Defendants were not the original owners in the mauza, but
they had purchased some land from `Pattidar' outside the abadi through
registered sale-deed---Defendants thus had not become owners of any
specific part of `abadi deh ' on account of having purchased such area,
which was in possession of plaintiffs---Besides concurrent finding of fact was
recorded by two courts below, which was on account of appreciation of oral
evidence that plaintiffs were the owners- and no misreading and non-reading of
evidence had been established by the defendants
 15. 2014 MLD 804 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

ALLAH NAWAZ vs Mst. HASINA BIBI(2014 MLD 804 PESHAWAR-HIGH-

COURT-NWFP)
S. 42---Suit for declaration---Inheritance--- Contention of plaintiff was that
he being nephew of deceased was entitled to inherit house owned by
deceased---Trial Court decreed the suit but same was dismissed by the
Appellate Court---
Validity---Disputed house was situated in Aabadi deh –
-Plaintiff had not produced any documentary proof with regard to title of
deceased---No pedigree table had been produced nor any other
documentary evidence had been brought on file to the effect that
plaintiff was nephew of deceased---Contradictions in the evidence and
plaint were on record which were sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff---Suit
house was in the possession of defendant---Plaintiff was bound to prove
his case but he had failed to prove the same---Revision was dismissed in
 16. GHULAM DIN vs ALI GAUHAR(2002 YLR 4030 LAHORE-
HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
• S.8---Suit for possession---Claim of plaintiffs was that they were owners of suit
land which formed part of abadi of village concerned, but same had been
occupied by defendants illegally who were not owners in the relevant Revenue
estate but were owners in a different Revenue estate---Suit filed by plaintiffs was
concurrently decreed by Courts below---
• One of the defendants had himself admitted that land in dispute was
located within red line (abadi) of village and that defendants were neither
owners in relevant village nor they had purchased land in dispute---
• Plaintiffs had proved themselves to be the owners of land in dispute, and
defendants who could not prove that their possession over suit-land was relatable
to a title or a licence, were liable to vacate land--Courts below had rightly decreed
suit and concurrent judgments and decrees of Courts below could not be
interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction
 17. PARTITION SUIT
• 1988 CLC 33 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs ZARIF KHAN
•
• West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 S.136--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.
9--Village site--Possession of co-sharer--Mode of partition--Jurisdiction of Civil
Courts—
• Hujra in abadi Deh constructed by grandfather of plaintiff and defendant--
Defendant resisting claim of plaintiff only on the ground that he had raised
construction thereon and was in exclusive possession thereof—
• No plea having been raised either in pleadings or in evidence that such
Hujra was constructed on Shamilat Deh, plaintiff, held, would be entitled to his
respective share in such property--Possession of defendant even if proved to be
exclusive would be in the capacity of co-sharers—
• Partition of village site though barred under 5.136, Land Revenue Act yet
civil Court's jurisdiction was not barred in such matters
 19. PLD 1963 LAHORE 349
FAZAL DAD vs NEK ALAM ETC.
• Custom (Punjab) ----abadi -Non proprietor selling to one of
proprietors kotha constructed by him with consent of
proprietors of village, on land given by such proprietors-

• Vendee-proprietor entitled to retain possession of site

under kotha till partition between proprietors-
•
• Lower Appellate Court's order requiring vendee to remove
superstructure of kotha set aside-
 CONFERMENT OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
ON NON-PROPRIETORS IN ABADI DEH
• Punjab Jinnah abadi es for non-proprietors in Rural Areas Act
(III of 1986), S.3 The Punjab Conferment of Proprietary
Rights on Non-Proprietors in Abadi

• Deh Ordinance, 1994 (XV of 1994) is hereby repealed

• Punjab Conferment of Proprietary Rights on Non-.
Proprietors in abadi deh Act (1 of 1995)

• THE PUNJAB CONFERMENT OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS ON

NON-PROPRIETORS IN ABADI DEH (AMENDMENT)
ORDINANCE, 2001 (Pb Ord LVII of 2001)
 MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs GOVERNMENT OF
PUNJAB through Collector
(2010 MLD 870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

s. 3 & 5---Application of S.3, Punjab Conferment of

Proprietary Rights on Non-Proprietors abadi deh Act,
1995---

Scope---Section 3 of the Act was applicable only when

a person was landless and person who owned other
land could not take the benefit of S.3
 21. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
through Collector(2010 MLD 870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-
LAHORE)

• S. 42---Punjab Conferment of Proprietary Rights on Non-

Proprietors abadi deh Act (I of 1995), Ss.3 & 5---Suit for declaration---
Plaintiffs asserted that they were owners in possession through their
forefathers, so allotment mutation in the name of defendant was liable to
be cancelled---Trial Court decreed the suit---Appellate Court allowed
appeal and set aside the order of Trial Court---Validity---Plaintiffs could not
establish their possession and made inconsistent statements---Mere claim
without corroboration had no status in the eye of law---
• Plaintiffs, being owners of other property, also,
could not take the benefit of S.3 of Punjab Conferment of
Proprietary Rights on Non-Proprietors abadi deh Act, 1995---
Impugned judgment and decree were in accordance with law; no
interference was called for---Civil revision was dismissed
 22. ABDUL REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD
IDREES(2010 MLD 1726 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

S. 42---Punjab Conferment of Proprietary Rights on Non-. Proprietors in abadi deh Act

(1 of 1995), S. 3---Suit for declaration---Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff when
purchased the disputed Haveli in 1940, predecessor-in-interest of defendants was
in possession of said Haveli as tenant-at-will---Predecessor of defendants alienated
the Haveli to one of the defendants in 1986---Plaintiffs contended that the
predecessor of defendants was not owner but a tenant-at-will, therefore, was not
competent to alienate the suit property through sale---Trial Court decreed the suit-
--Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the defendant---Validity---Record
revealed and evidence led by witnesses showed that predecessor of defendants
was in possession of suit Haveli even before 1940-No evidence on record showed
that defendants ever paid any rent to plaintiffs who could nod produce any
evidence to prove that defendants were tenant-at-will---Defendants had been
in possession of the Haveli since 1940, so suit for declaration and
possession as consequential relief filed in 1992 was time-barred---Suit
Haveli was situated in abadideh , defendants being landless persons had
become absolute owners of the Haveli under S.3 of the Punjab
Conferment of Proprietary Rights on Non-Proprietors in abadi deh Act,
1995---Revision being meritless, was dismissed
 23. FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAISALABAD through
Director General vs Mst. KHURSHID
BEGUM(2010 CLC 825 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)
• S. 42---Punjab Conferment of Proprietary Rights on Non-Proprietors
in abadi deh Act (I of 1995), S.3---Suit for declaration-Predecessor of plaintiffs
averred in the plaint that he was a resident of Kachi abadi prior to 1-1-1978; his
name, however, was not entered in the survey conducted by Development
Authority in 1974-75; as an alternate accommodation he was allotted a house but
no proprietary rights were given to him---
• Trial Court dismissed the suit---Plaintiffs filed appeal before appellate
Court which accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of Trial
Court---
• Validity---Plaintiffs were entitled to the advantage of S.3 of Punjab
Conferment of Proprietary Rights on Non-Proprietors in abadi deh Act,
1995, which conferred all rights, title and interest whatever, in the land
which was situated within the abadi deh and which was under a house
owned by non proprietor, shall, on the commencement of the Act, vest
in the non proprietor under whose house it was situate---Petition was
dismissed
Thank You!