Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 1 of 1954‑55, decided on 25th January 1956, District Sheikhupura.

S. 117---- Question of title‑Must be dealt with by Revenue Officer either by constituting himself into or by referring parties to, a Civil Court‑Disregard of provisions of S. 117‑Case remanded.

Where the Assistant Collector, First Grade, had dis regarded the provisions of section 117, Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887) while dealing with a case wherein a ques tion of title had been raised, and, had sanctioned the mode of partition, the Revenue Board remanded the case, directing that the Revenue Officer should either constitute himself into a Civil Court and determine the question of title or decline to grant the partition pending decision of the question of title by a competent Court.

S. 16 (3) ‑Revision‑Limitation‑Presented to Commissioner within 90 days‑Held, in time.

Though the law does not specifically provide a period of limitation for filing revision petitions, the practice of the Financial Commissioners has been to fix it at 90 days following the period laid down for appeals.

Held, that a petition of revision presented to the Commissioner beyond 60, but within 90, days was within time on the principle that the Commissioner was merely a receiving authority for the Financial Commissioner in view of sub section (3) of section 16, Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887).

Soshela Devi v. Parbati P L D (Rev.) 1950 Pb. 253, ref.

Sh. Bashir Ahmad for Petitioners.

S. M. Hassan for Respondent.

‑The following pedigree‑table will assist in understanding the facts of this case:

The facts of the case are that the property in dispute originally belonged to Dilawar Ali who was succeeded by his sons Wahid Ali and Sakhawat Ali. The latter's name was struck off the Revenue records in 1911‑12 at the time of Settlement on account of his absence and being out of possession. Wahid Ali was succeeded by his sons who on 2nd May 1942, partitioned the property by means of a registered deed. Mutations were entered accordingly but owing to the absence of Anwar Ali respondent; who lived in the United Provinces, these were finally filed in 1947. On the 2nd July 1947, Anwar Ali applied for partition of the property. Haider Ali etc., raised the obvious question of title, namely that partition. of the property had already been carried out in accordance with the registered deed dated 2nd May 1992. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade nevertheless on 1st April 1953, sanctioned a mode of partition ex‑parte. The petitioners appealed to the Collector who on 16th February 1954, dis missed it as time‑barred. They went up in revision to the Commissioner who passed a somewhat peculiar order, directing that the petitioners should file a bond with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 40,000 ; be would then go into the question whether in fact a partition of the property had been carried out in accordance with the registered deed of May 1942. The petitioners declined to furnish the security desired by the Commissioner and have come up in revision.

The main point that has been put forward on behalf of the petitioners is that they had definitely raised a question of title which was bona‑fide in view of the registered geed of partition dated 2nd May 1942. The only proper course open to the Assistant Collector was to follow the provisions of section 117 of the Land Revenue Act ; either he could have constituted himself into a Civil Court and decided the question of title or declined to grant the application until the question had been determined by a competent Court. If the Assistant Collector constituted himself into a Civil Court, then the appeal lay to the District Judge. Thus, the appellate or the revisionary authorities on the Revenue Side are not competent to go into the question of title which prima‑facie according to the scheme of the Act is left for determination by a Civil Court.

Another point has also been raised on behalf of the respondents, namely that the revision petitions filed before the Commissioner were time‑barred. Though the law does not specifically provide a period of limitation for filing revision petitions, the practice of the Financial Commissioners has been to fix it at 90 days following the period laid down for appeals. The argument advanced is that the revision petitions were filed with the Commissioner after a lapse of 60 days, but in this connection my attention has been invited to Soshela Devi v. Parbati (P L D (Rev.) 1950 Pb. 253) in which Abdul Aziz F. C. held that if an application is presented within 90 days of the order against which a revision petition is presented to the Commissioner, it should be held to be within time on the principle that the Commissioner is merely a receiving authority for the Financial Commissioners.

I would accordingly accept the revision petitions and direct that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade should either constitute himself into a Civil Court and determine the question of title or decline to grant the partition pending its decision by a competent Court.

A. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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