Although revenue department problems are more common in rural areas, there are a sizeable number of such cases involving urban areas as well. The majority of cases in rural Punjab are civil or property related cases. Most civil disputes are land related and the role of the revenue department and its functionary, the patwari at the village level, is crucial. The patwri maintains the record of property held in the village, issues attestation of ownership for land transactions, verifies status of ownership and helps in the demarcation of land boundaries amongst other things. Most disputes in villages are land related, and land is viewed as a symbol of prestige, besides being an economic asset. Even criminal disputes (i.e murder or assault) are often linked to land related disputes. The extortionist role of patwaris often exacerbates disputes.

One civil case in an urban Rawalpindi court saw a poor man caught in the judicial system as the defendant in an alleged fraud at the revenue department. The defendant claimed that his opponents were part of a qabza (illegal land-garb) group. They tried to sell his plot by getting hold of the defendant’s identity card, in collusion with the patwari. Later on, the police also sided with the influential plaintiff.

Land revenue problems are the root cause of much rural litigation. The monopoly of department officials over land and revenue documents gives them a free hand to indulge in rampant extortion. Another civil case, “Zia versus Nafees”, was dismissed against the plaintiff due to his inability to handle the revenue department. The plaintiff, Zia, had clearly stated in his suit, and in his in-depth interview with the research team, that he had problems dealing with the local revenue officials. According to Zia:

The first step was demarcation of land before filling the case. I made repeated requests to the patwar and the girdawar for the demarcation of land but they did not listen to me. I needed to get one signature from patwari and it took me six months to get that done. I filed a complaint against him. Nothing came of it. In the end, I had to pay Rs.300 to get his signatures. There was no way for demarcation of the land. Finally, I requested the tehsildar for demarcation of land and he did it for a Rs.4000 bribe. After completing the requirements I field the case in the court.

The role of patwaris is, however, not limited to causing civil litigation. They also play a role in delaying proceedings, usually in collusion with the influential party. Property suits are filed to manipulate out-of-court settlements in order to maintain or change the status quo at the local level, Generally, delaying tactics used by the influential party (whether plaintiff or defendant), in collusion with the lawyers and the court, influence the outcome.

In a civil case in district Haripur, the plaintiff delayed the proceedings with the help from a patwari. There was not much substance to the suit, and he was aware that it was not going to be decided in his favour. However, he managed to get a temporary injunction against any change in the status quo regarding the property. Despite quick pleadings and framing of the issues, presentation of prosecution evidence began twelve months later. Though the plaintiff had submitted the list of witnesses, his lawyer and the patwari took turns in being absent. The plaintiff’s lawyer would show up for the hearing intending to declare the plaintiff as an ex-parte, and thus save his client from being thrown out of the proceedings, only to disappear again. Every prolonged absence was pleaded on the pretext of some urgent matter or the other (e.g being out of the city on urgent business or hospitalized).

The patwari was similarly absent and the court sent non-bailable warrants for his arrest. He appeared on the very next hearing citing an urgent reason for his absence. Hence, the prosecution evidence began one year after the framing of issues. Then the defendant was unable to present his evidence due to the absence of the patwari. The court’s practice of summoning the patwari and other revenue officials violated the strict provision of Chapter 5B, Vol. I of High Court Rules and Orders, which require satisfactory affidavits as to why the authorized copy of the revenue record cannot adequately serve the purpose. Thus, this practice of seeking the presence of revenue officials is a violation of the law committed by judges in civil courts. In this particular case, if was not clear why the judge did not declare the plaintiff an exparte. The delays continued until a compromise was reached two years and eight months after the filing of the suit.

The case showed that the courts allow themselves to be manipulated. The judge granted adjournments without imposing costs on the party at fault or compensating those not a fault. There is no need to summon a patwari, or any other official of the revenue department in person, unless there are substantive grounds for believing that the certified copy is not adequate proof of the official record, something that was routinely done by the court. In such cases, the courts contribute to delays by even violating the law. The courts also adjourned cases in response to applications seeking interim relief because a party to the dispute was involved in another case. In most such situations, the two cases could proceed simultaneously.

In the above-mentioned case, the plaintiff wanted to delay the proceeding to buy more time vis-à-vis the status of his property. He achieved this in collusion with the patwari and by exploiting the loopholes in the civil litigation system. The lack of, or selective application, of certain civil procedures was duly exploited.