In the labyrinthine halls of Pakistan's judiciary, there is a crisis of staggering yet unrealised proportions. With over 2.3 million pending cases, from the Supreme Court down to the district level, the age-old maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" has never rung truer. While the sheer volume is daunting, a closer look reveals a startling reality: the most common cases are civil disputes, and among them, the most protracted are those concerning the partition of agricultural land.
Pakistan is an agrarian nation, and land is often the primary source of wealth and identity for a family. However, the process of dividing inherited property can become a decades-long saga. According to legal experts, a typical partition case can take an average of 20 years to conclude, from the initial trial court proceedings to a final judgment by the Supreme Court. For two decades, for a family to receive their rightful share, this is not just a delay; it is a profound denial of justice. The starting point for this excruciating journey is the revenue court system, and a deep dive into its operations, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), reveals that it is not a solution but a fundamental part of the problem.
The foundation of the revenue court system in KP is the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. With its roots in pre-partition legislation, this law remains the cornerstone of land jurisprudence. It was originally enacted for the former province of West Pakistan and has since been adopted and amended in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, notably with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2014, which aimed to introduce modern changes like the digitisation of land records.
The Act lays out a comprehensive framework for the maintenance of land records, the definition of ownership rights, and the demarcation of boundaries. It also empowers a hierarchy of Revenue Officers, including the Board of Revenue, the Commissioner, and the Collector, with quasi-judicial authority to resolve land disputes. However, while the legal framework appears robust on paper, its implementation is where the system collapses.
Partition, specifically addressed in Chapter XI (Sections 135 to 148), is one of the most litigated subjects under this Act. The law correctly grants every joint owner the right to apply for a partition, a right that is not time-barred. However, the sheer volume of these cases stems from a critical, often-ignored issue: the absence of a proper, accessible, and formal mechanism for private partitions. Vulnerable persons in the families, such as women, are often forced to handle these divisions informally, which creates a breeding ground for disputes that inevitably spill over into the courts.
The revenue courts are not solving the issue; they are a critical part of the problem
The primary flaw in the system lies with the very individuals tasked with dispensing justice: the Revenue Officers. At the tehsil level, the first point of contact is often an Additional Assistant Commissioner (AAC). These officers, while part of the administrative services, are given significant judicial powers. However, they are also burdened with an array of critical administrative responsibilities, from supervising polio campaigns to monitoring exams in their areas of jurisdiction and enforcing price controls. On their website, the department itself has acknowledged that: this department has to deal with Court matters and Litigation process in civil courts in the province along with cases pending in Peshawar High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad and other legal forums at provincial level and due to non-technical/qualified staff this department has to run with existing ministerial staff which has no law/legal qualification background and faces legal implications to defend the interest of the Government during the litigation process.
This dual role is the perfect recipe for a judicial bottleneck. With their time and attention constantly pulled in multiple directions, these officers have very little opportunity to dedicate themselves to the complex and time-consuming process of hearing and deliberating on land disputes. The result is chronic delays, a huge waste of time and money for the litigants, and a persistent sense that justice is being denied. The caseload is simply too high, and the priorities are too varied.
The delays are compounded by a worrying lack of capacity, competency, and transparency at various levels. The system's inefficiency often leaves a vacuum that is filled by corruption. The departmental staff, including Tehsildars, Readers, and Patwaris, who are supposed to support the officers, are often the de facto power brokers. They develop networks based on vested interests with powerful parties, and with little oversight, they can manipulate the system to their advantage.
Everyone involved in the process, from lawyers to the litigants themselves, acknowledges that fairness, transparency, and justice are rare commodities in this system. The pervasive sentiment is that justice is a long and arduous road, with true hope for a fair verdict only coming at the High Court, which serves as the final appellate court for such cases. But imagine the cost of time, money, and emotional energy required to reach that level of the judiciary.
Moreover, there is no easily accessible and effective grievance redressal system for citizens to complain about corruption or malpractices. This lack of accountability provides a blanket cover for malfeasance and reinforces the public’s mistrust in the system.
The current revenue court system is an anachronism. Good governance is built on the pillars of transparency, accountability, and separation of powers. The idea that administrative officers, already stretched thin with executive duties, can also dispense fair and timely justice is a fallacy. In short, the revenue courts are not solving the issue; they are a critical part of the problem.
To move from denial to delivery of justice, fundamental reforms are needed. The judicial and administrative roles must be separated in letter and spirit. The government should consider establishing dedicated land tribunals or specialised courts with properly trained judicial officers who are not burdened by competing administrative duties. These courts would be staffed by judges and officers with deep expertise in land law, ensuring that cases are handled with the necessary attention and competence.
Furthermore, the ongoing digitisation of land records must be accelerated and made fully transparent. A public, accessible, and easy-to-use grievance system is also essential to hold officials accountable. Only by creating a system that is transparent, efficient, and free from the conflicts of interest inherent in the current model can we hope to address the decades-long backlog and provide the people of Pakistan with the timely justice they deserve. The time for piecemeal amendments has passed; what is needed is a total overhaul to ensure that our land laws serve the citizens, not paralyse them.