MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL through Mst. Naziran
Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment and review order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioners' application for partition. The dispute arose over land measuring 222 Kanals, 12 Marlas, where the petitioners sought partition despite a prior private partition effected in 1969 under which both parties held possession of their specific shares (wandas). Following a remand by the District Collector, the Assistant Collector Grade-I, acting under Section 141 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, declared that a valid private partition had already taken place, which was affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners themselves admitted the private partition in their pleadings, and the slight excess land held by the respondents was by mutual agreement from 1969. Holding that no illegality or infirmity was established, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether an application for partition of land is maintainable when a private partition has already been mutually effected and acted upon by the parties for over a decade?
- Whether an Assistant Collector Grade-I acting under Section 141 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 has jurisdiction to decide questions of title arising from a private partition?
- Can a party challenge a private partition solely on the ground that one co-owner holds a marginal excess of land where such possession was established pursuant to mutual agreement?
- Section 141, Land Revenue Act, 1967
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN. J.---Leave to appeal is soughtagainst the judgment/order dated 21-2-2000 and 7-4-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, respectively dismissed civil revision as well as review petition filed by the petitioners.
2. ' Facts briefly are that the petitioners filed an application for partition of land measuring 222 Kanals, 12 Marlas and took up the plea that a private partition had already been effected between the parties 'whereafter they were in possession of specific numbers. It was further averred in the said application that the said private partition was not violative of MLR 115. Muhammad Tufail, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, submitted his reply on 18-5-1981 whereafter the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Sahiwal, passed an order on the same day proceeding with the application stating that since no issue of title was involved, as such he started proceeding to sanction the mode of partition.
3. ' The respondent took exception to the order dated 18-5-1981 and the learned District Collector, Sahiwal, accepted the appeal against the above order and remanded the case for fresh proceedings after determining the title. Subsequent to the remand, Muhammad Tufail respondent filed a suit for declaration. The Tehsildar/A.C. Grade-I took up the matter in exercise of his power under section 141 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and framed issues. The parties led their evidence and the TehEildar/A.C. Through his order dated 6-1-1983 gave a declaration that a private partition between the parties was effected and consequent thereto they got specific area and had been occupying their WANDAS since then. The petitioners filed an appeal against the above judgment, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, through his judgment dated 10-7-1985. Civil Revision No,523 of 1985 against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Multan through his judgment dated 21-2-2000.
4. Thereafter, they filed a review petition which too was dismissed through his order dated 7-4-2000.
5. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
6. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents are in possession of excess land measuring 4 Kanals and the Courts have wrongly dismissed their partition application.
7. We have considered the above contention and have gone through the entire documents annexed with the petition. At the very outset it must be noted that the petitioner himself in his application made reference to a private partition and mentioned the specific area in their possession. Not a single word against the private partition was made in the saidapplication which was filed on 19-8- 1980. The respondent took exception to the order dated 18-5-1981 which was set aside by the District Collector, Sahiwal, on 7-12-1981 and the latter order was not challenged any further, as such the same in the circumstances had attained finality. Consequent to the last mentioned order the respondent filed a declaratory suit which has been decreed and the learned High Court by advancing cogent reasons has maintained the determinations of all the forums below. A perusal of the documents further reveals that the above private partition took place in 1969 and since then the parties are in possession of their respective areas. It is also reflected from the record that few Kanals of land in excess is with the respondents and that was certainly with the agreement of the parties which took place, as already stated, in the year 1969. Furthermore, the said application was made by the petitioners in the year 1980 nearly more than 10 years after the private partition which had already been effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity, in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 1 case
- Shakira Akbar Versus Mst. Safia Kakar 2026 YLR 931