Find a Lawyer

R.O.R No.1180 of 1986, decided on 24th June, 1987.

‑‑‑S.13‑‑Separation of joint Khata by Consolidation Officer‑‑Such Khata rejoined by Appellate Court on appeal by some of the co‑sharers o1 same‑‑Validity of rejoining of Khata challenged in revision Consent of all the shareholders for separation of joint Khata, held, would be mandatory in consolidation proceedings‑‑Where consent of all such co‑sharers was not available, a joint Khata could not be separated‑ Revision dismissed in circumstances.

P L D 1975 Rev. 228 and P L D 1982 Rev. l ref.

Ch. Subhan Khan for Petitioner.

Rameed Asghar Sheikh for Respondents.

This is a revision petition filed a/s. 13 of the Consolidation of Land Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 29‑3‑1986 of the Addl. Commissioner (Cons), G/Wala, whereby revision petition of the respondents, was accepted.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during consolidation operations the khata of the parties was separated with the consent of the parties. However, the statements of the parties were not attested by the Consolidation Officer. The possessions were also changed accordingly. The petitioner has received only 2‑K land from his previous holdings. The rest of the land was uncultivated and Barani and the petitioner brought it under plough after hard labour. When the land became cultivable then the respondents filed an appeal before the Collector, which was rightly dismissed but the Addl. Commissioner (Cons) without any justification again rejoined the khata of the parties. The relation between the parties are not good and the respondents will not give share the produce to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that in this case there is also a widow namely Rashim Bibi. In the presence of a widow the khata can be, partitioned.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the respondents did not give any consent for the separation of their wanda. Document produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not signed by the parties as well as by the Consolidation Officer, as such the application for separation of khata was not a legal document and cannot be acted upon. In the first instance a joint scheme No.22 was prepared on 12‑8‑1984 and 'the petitioner signed it on behalf of all khatedars. But later on, scheme No.32 was also prepared in which the khata of the petitioner was carved out separately. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that Consolidation Officer was not empowered to review his earlier scheme No.22 without any lawful authority. The Consolidation Officer cannot act in his own accord in the absence of any or all conditions laid down in para. 14 clause (5) of the Board of Revenue's standing instructions on the issue. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon PLD 1975 Rev. 228 and P L D 1982 page 1 (Rev.) to that effect. The petitioner has signed both the schemes for which he was not competent. 'The learned counsel has further added that the impugned order is quite legal and has prayed that it may be maintained.

4. I have heard the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The petitioner wants separation of joint khata as it was done in consolidation proceedings while the respondents are not agreed for such separation. The consent of all the shareholders to that effect is mandatory which is not available in the instant case. The document on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon is not admissible under the law being incomplete and as has no entity in the eyes of law, therefore, the learned Addl. Commissioner(Cons.) has rightly ordered to rejoin the khata of the parties. I see no force in the revision petition which is dismissed accordingly.

A.A./229/R Revision 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.