This Case Commentary is written by Shagufta Ramzan, a Fourth Year Law student of University Law College, Quetta

CASE DESCRIPTION:

COURT:

Civil Court Peshawar

Case Title:

Mst. TAJRIAN through legal heirs and 9 others---Petitioners
Versus
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOREST, ISLAMABAD and 3 others---Respondents

Citation:

2023 Y L R 619 [Peshawar]

Judge:

Abdul Shakoor, J

Counsel for the Appellant:

Fida Gul

Counsel for the Respondent no 1:

Qazi Babar Irshad, D.A.G

Date of Decision:

4th March 2022

Case History:

The case involved a dispute over land ownership and acquisition. The land in dispute was claimed by petitioners, also known as the appellants and in 2004, they formally filed a lawsuit to claim the land again and also to get/receive mesne profit. The suit alleged that the petitioner put forth the claim that the respondents (government authorities) had acquired a portion of their property illegally. In 2011, the lawsuit was dismissed by trial court. An appeal was also dismissed in 2014. Following that event, the petitioners afterwards filed a revision petition to the judge before the court. The decision regarding the revision petition was rendered on March 4, 2022. The judgement was authorized and written by Judge Abdul Shakoor, the ruling denied and dismissed the petition and upheld the lower court’s decision.

The petitioners asserted that a small area/portion of their land had been seized without any kind of compensation/remuneration and just a small part which was 16 marlas had been lawfully and legally obtained for government use. In addition to that the petitioner was completely unaware of the degree of the government possession until they had redeemed the portion of the property that was originally mortgaged. Both the trial court and appellate court concluded that since the original case of acquisition happened in 1957, it was too late for petitioner to bring up the claim.

Facts of the case:

In the case of "Mst. Tajrian and others v. Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and Forest and 3 others," the dispute centered on land ownership. In 2004, the petitioner claimed to be land’s owner and filed a lawsuit to regain the possession of the land and also to earn mesne profit. They claimed that a part of their land had been taken illegally by the government’s respondent. This dispute arose because a part of their property was included in a land acquisition notification for a college linked to the University. Additionally, the petitioners contended that they learned about the government’s respondents illegally occupation of land after redeeming a mortgaged portion. However, the petitioner’s lawsuit was dismissed in 2011 as time-barred, when the court decided that they had not timely objected to the property acquisition, which has happened in 1957. This decision and ruling was upheld in later appeals.

Issues:

In this case, the topic of discussion or the issue include property disputes, namely whether the applicants can prove and demonstrate that they are the rightful owners of the subject land mentioned in the case and also if the respondents obtained the land unlawfully. Legal value of land recovery that whether the government's recovery of a portion of land was carried out in accordance with relevant laws and procedures or not? Also the procedural speed that whether the petitioners filed suit in time to assert their rights to this land remains to be seen, considering the decades since its acquisition. Another issue was Mesne profit requirements that whether the applicants are entitled to recover their profits as compensation for the illegal misappropriation of their assets.

Relevant Law/ Provisions:

The Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which establishes the guidelines for land acquisition for public use, lays down and serves as the legal foundation of the case. Furthermore, Article 17 of the Limitation Act of 1908 becomes important while assessing the petitioners timeliness in filling a lawsuit. These legal frameworks play a pivotal role in shaping the court's interpretation and application of the laws regarding land acquisition, property rights, and the admissibility of the case based on the time limitation for legal claims.

Arguments of the Parties:

In this case, the petitioners, led by Mst. Tajrian and others argued that they were the rightful owners of the disputed land and claimed that the government defendants had acquired part of their property (16 marlas) without adequate compensation, which they considered an illegal occupation. Additionally, there was also an assertion by the party that they found out about this illegal and unlawful occupation and ownership of the property after they repurchased a piece of real estate from the bank. On the other hand, the governmental agencies, represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and others, could claim that the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and all other relevant legal procedures were followed in order to acquire the disputed land/property. They purposely provided documentation of evidence to back up their claim, claiming that the applicant's action was time-limited because of lengthy delays in the legal procedure that followed the land’s 1957 acquisition.

Decision of the Court:

The petitioner’s lawsuit was dismissed because the court upheld the previous decision made by the trial and appellate courts. The disputed land’s inclusion in a 1957 land acquisition notification, the petitioner’s negligence in filling a lawsuit and the government’s lawful acquisition and use of the land were all significant contributing factors in the results. Due to the significant delay in filing the suit (over 40 years after acquisition), the court deemed it time-barred, leading to its dismissal, with no costs awarded to either party.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the case of "Mst. Tajrian and others v. Secretary Ministry of Agriculture and Forest and 3 others" underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures in land acquisition. It highlights the significance of timely legal action to protect property rights and the potential consequences of delayed litigation. This case contributes to legal precedent within its jurisdiction and provides guidance on issues related to land acquisition, property rights, and time limitations for legal claims.

Relevance to Jurisprudence:

This case is relevant to jurisprudence as it addresses key legal principles in land acquisition, property rights, time limitations for legal actions, and adherence to legal procedures. While not a major precedent, it adds to the body of legal knowledge and guides future cases in similar areas.

References:

Mst. Tajrian through legal heirs and 9 others v. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Forest, Islamabad and 3 others, 2023 YLR 619 (Peshawar).