Malicious Prosecution Claim in Land Allotment Dispute

In Regular First Appeal No. 28132 of 2023, the Lahore High Court addressed an appeal concerning a claim for damages based on malicious prosecution (2024 LHC 4161). The appellant, Asghar Ali, challenged the trial court's judgment and decree dated 23.01.2023, which had partially awarded Rs. 100,000 in damages to the respondent, Muhammad Asghar, in connection with land allotted under the Punjab Government Lambardari Scheme. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Lahore High Court overturned the lower court's decision, dismissing the respondent’s suit for damages amounting to Rs. 53,924,500. The Court found that the appellant's actions in contesting the land allotment were justified, lawful, and not malicious, as the land in question was reserved as Charagah (grazing land), which could not lawfully be allotted under the Lambardari scheme.

Background:

The respondent, Muhammad Asghar, filed a suit on 26.04.2012, claiming damages for malicious prosecution, alleging that the appellant, Asghar Ali, had filed appeals and revision petitions challenging the allotment of 12 ½ acres of land under the Lambardari scheme. The respondent contended that the appellant initiated these legal proceedings with malice, causing him mental and physical distress, damaging his reputation, and leading to financial losses. The respondent sought Rs. 53,924,500 as compensation for various damages, including legal fees, travel expenses, loss of agricultural crops, and defamation.

The trial court partially decreed the suit, awarding Rs. 100,000 to the respondent as compensation. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant filed an appeal, arguing that his actions were based on legitimate concerns regarding the legality of the land allotment, as the land was reserved for public grazing and could not be allotted.

Key Issues:

Elements of Malicious Prosecution: Whether the appellant's legal challenges against the respondent’s land allotment met the requirements for a claim of malicious prosecution, including malice and lack of probable cause.

Legality of Land Allotment: Whether the land in question, designated as Charagah (grazing land), could lawfully be allotted under the Lambardari scheme.

Evidentiary Standards for Malicious Prosecution: Whether the respondent provided sufficient evidence to prove the alleged damages and malicious intent of the appellant.

Court's Analysis:

Elements of Malicious Prosecution: The Court applied the established legal principles for determining malicious prosecution, drawing on the precedent set in Muhammad Akram vs. Farman Bibi (PLD 1990 SC 28). For a claim of malicious prosecution to succeed, the plaintiff must prove six elements: prosecution by the defendant, favorable termination of the proceedings, lack of reasonable and probable cause, malice, interference with liberty or reputation, and actual damages suffered. The Court found that the appellant's legal actions were based on a legitimate concern that the land was wrongly allotted, as it was reserved for Charagah purposes. Consequently, there was no malice or lack of probable cause in the appellant’s actions.

Legality of Land Allotment: The Court critically examined the legality of the land allotment to the respondent. It found that the land in question was designated as Charagah under various notifications and policies issued by the Punjab Revenue Department. Such land was expressly excluded from allotment under the Lambardari scheme without prior approval from the Board of Revenue. The District Collector, Mandi Bahauddin, had later cancelled the respondent’s allotment on the grounds that it violated these rules. The Court held that the appellant had acted in the public interest by challenging the illegal allotment and that his actions were neither malicious nor improper.

Evidentiary Standards: The Court noted that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of damages. Despite asserting that he suffered mental and physical distress, incurred legal fees, and lost agricultural crops, the respondent did not submit medical evidence, financial records, or other documentary proof to substantiate these claims. Furthermore, the documents the respondent submitted were improperly tendered through his counsel’s statement rather than through witnesses subject to cross-examination. The Court relied on the principle established in Manzoor Hussain vs. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 SC 749) and Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik (PLD 2021 SC 715) that documents not properly tendered in evidence cannot be considered admissible.

Court's Conclusion: The Lahore High Court concluded that the appellant had acted with reasonable and probable cause in challenging the respondent's land allotment, and his actions were not driven by malice. The appellant’s actions were motivated by a legitimate public interest in preserving Charagah land, and the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence of damages. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree. The respondent's suit for damages was dismissed in its entirety.

Contact Us:

For expert legal assistance in handling land disputes, claims of malicious prosecution, or property law matters, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP. We provide comprehensive legal representation to ensure that your rights are protected throughout complex litigation.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.