Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 1040 of 1963‑64, decided on 17th February 1965.

-----

----Mode of‑Excess land taken away from party and land of other party given to former on principle of consolidation of holdings‑Mode not interfered with in Second Revision.

------

----Mode of‑Private partition with regard to other land not given effect to‑in Revenue Records‑Rightly ignored in regard to land which was now subject of partition.

S. 111‑Plea against mode of partition not raised in appeal before Collector not allowed to be raised in Second Revision before Board.

Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad for Petitioner.

Respondent No. 1 in person.

Munir Shah for Respondent No. 2.

This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 16th of January 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner Sargodha, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

The facts of the case are that the respondents applied for the partition of Khata No. 3 but no action was taken because the parties came to a compromise. Subsequently, the respondents applied for the partition of Khata No. 2 and the Tehsildar, after the necessary formalities, sanctioned a mode of partition. The petitioners went in appeal to the Collector but it was dismissed. They then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, but it was also dismissed. Hence this second revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that some land in the possession of the petitioners had been taken away from them. I see no force in this contention because the petitioners' possession was in excess of their entitlement and, during partition, excess land had to betaken away from them.

The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that some land in possession of the respondents has been given to the petitioners. Normally, this would not be the correct thing to do but I find that the partition was done in accordance with the principles consolidation of holdings. In such cases, in order to give compact blocks, to the parties, some land in the possession of the respondents had to be given to the petitioners in spite of the fact that their possession was in excess of their share.

The third point urged before me was that no consideration was given to the private partition. This private partition never given effect to in the revenue records and was, rightly ignored.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, had also referred me to the compromise arrived at between the parties. This com promise was with respect to Khata No. 3 and has, therefore, no relevancy as for as partition of Khata No. 2 is concerned.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the question that the well or haveli belonging to the petitioners was taken away and given to the respondents. Reference to the record shows that this plea was never taken before the Collector while he heard the appeal. It cannot be raised at the second revisional stage.

In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby.

A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.