Once Legal Remedies under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 are exhausted, Litigants cannot invoke Civil Court Jurisdiction for the same Dispute --- Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad 26-03-2025: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed multiple civil appeals challenging the resumption of excess land under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, emphasizing the Doctrine of Election and jurisdictional limitations of Civil Courts.
The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, pertains to [Civil Appeals No. 112-K to 116-K/2022]. The appellants, including Qazi Mumtaz Hussain, Mst. Naimat Khatoon, Qazi Jan Muhammad, and others, contested the order of the High Court of Sindh, which had ruled against them in their challenge to land resumption orders issued by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Tharparkar.
The Court ruled that once the appellants had pursued remedies under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, including appeals before the Land Commissioner, Mirpurkhas Division, they were barred from subsequently invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for the same relief.
The appellants were required to surrender land beyond their permissible holding limits, as per the 1977 Act. Upon their failure to comply, the Deputy Land Commissioner lawfully resumed the excess land after proper notification.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the resumption process was conducted in accordance with legal provisions, with no jurisdictional defect warranting intervention by the Civil Courts.
The Court also clarified that the Qazalbash Waqf Case (1993 SCMR 1697), which questioned certain land reforms, had no retrospective effect on proceedings initiated under the Martial Law Regulation (MLR) 115 and the Land Reforms Act, 1977.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the decisions of the High Court of Sindh and ruled that the appellants had exhausted their legal remedies under the 1977 Act, and could not re-litigate the matter through Civil Courts. As a result, their appeals were dismissed.
This decision reaffirms the binding nature of land reform regulations and the principle that once a litigant chooses a legal forum, they cannot later seek alternative relief in a different jurisdiction.
Legal Implications:
- Strengthens the applicability of the Doctrine of Election in property disputes.
- Limits the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in cases where specialized legal frameworks apply.
- Upholds land reform measures and government actions regarding excess land resumption.
This ruling sets a precedent for landowners challenging government actions under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 and reinforces the finality of decisions made under specialized legal frameworks.
Powered by Froala Editor
