Find a Lawyer

R.O.R. No.693 of 2012, decided on 24th July, 2013.

----Ss. 135, 150 & 164---Revision---Partition---Petitioner filed application before Tehsildar for partition of joint Khata, which application was accepted and Wandas of parties were framed accordingly---Order of partition was maintained by District Officer (Revenue) but Additional Commissioner (Revenue) allowed revision and modified Wandas of parties---Validity---While passing orders, Additional Commissioner (Revenue) placed thrust upon possession of parties, whereas possession was one of the consideration and not the only consideration for disposal of partition cases---Revenue forums, under mandatory provision viz Ss.135 to 150 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 to keep in view all considerations while deciding matter of partition---Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and remanded the matter to District Collector to decide the same afresh---Revision was allowed accordingly. Tanveer Hussain Ansari for Petitioner. Muhammad Abid Hussain on behalf of Hakeem-ud-Din for Respondents.

This revision petition has been filed against order dated 27-2-2012. passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, whereby revision petition of the present respondents was accepted and amendments in the wandas of the parties were made. 2. Arguments heard and record perused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the land of joint khata was rightly and lawfully partitioned by Tehsildar, Kabirwala through which, land was partitioned strictly in accordance with law keeping in view previous possession, entitlement of the parties, path, means of irrigation, classification of land etc. That order was justifiably upheld by learned District Officer (Revenue) after consultation of the record and hearing contention of the parties. But learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) set aside the concurrent orders without assigning any valid reason vide order dated 27-2-2012. This order is non-speaking which has been passed without consultation of the Revenue Record. No deficiency in the entitlement of parties was occurred, therefore, the partition order was to be maintained. Finally it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the co-sharers are in possession of land of their share since long. They are living there after construction of houses. The Tehsildar during the partition proceedings did not keep in mind this very vital and pivotal aspect of the case and included the land of respondents in the Wanda of petitioners. The compact land of the respondents was scattered into pieces making looking after and cultivation of the same difficult. Moreover means of irrigation and path was also not kept in view. The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) passed a well-reasoned and justified order through which the wrong was rectified and caused no deficiency, whatsoever in the entitlement of parties. While concluding the arguments, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that Allah Ditta submitted an application to the Tehsildar, Kabirwala for partition of land of joint khata, which was accepted on 13-7-1990 and wandas of the parties were framed accordingly. Nazar Muhammad etc. present respondents assailed that order through appeal before learned District Officer (Revenue),-Khanewal, which was dismissed vide order dated 18-4-2011. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:--- Aggrieved by this order, the present respondents preferred a revision petition before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, which was accepted vide order dated 27-2-2012 and amendments were made in wandas of the parties. The operative part of the order is as under:--- The perusal of above orders shows that while passing such order, the thrust has been placed on the possession of the parties, whereas possession is one of the consideration and not the only consideration for disposal of partition cases. It is mandatory by law (sections 135 to 150 Land Revenue Act, 1967) to consider all the considerations, while deciding the matter of partition. Hence the revision petition is accepted and impugned order dated 27-2-2012, of learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, is set aside and matter is remanded to District Collector, Khanewal, to decide the case afresh in the light of relevant law and ample opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties be provided. MH/4/Rev. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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