MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
ORDER
BABAR AMAN BABAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).---
1. Precisely, facts of the case are that the Tehsildar / AC-I, Renala Khurd, approved partition of joint Khewat No. 15 vide order dated 30.01.2023. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondent No.1 assailed that partition order by filing an appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Okara, who vide order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed it. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal against order of ADC (R), Okara, which was accepted by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, vide impugned order dated 24.10.2024. Hence, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent No.1 is owner of land measuring 09-Kanal and 12-Marla in joint Khewat No.15. That the Revenue Officer approved the Wandajaat with consent of the parties. That as per Register Haqdaran-e-Zameen for the year 2009-10, the respondent No.1 had sold his land to Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited. That there is no hurdle in passage and irrigation as it first irrigates the crops of respondent and then others. That during lifespan of petitioner's father, the respondents never objected on irrigation of crops but now raising objection in this regard. That now they cannot challenge the longstanding possession of the petitioners as the respondents never challenged it in lifespan of their father. That except respondent No.1 no other party feels aggrieved by the partition proceedings. That learned Additional Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, without consultation of record and applying judicial mind accepted the appeal of respondent No.1 and set aside the orders of lower courts. Finally, acceptance of the instant revision petition has been prayed for by upholding the order of ADC (R), Okara, dated 30.04.2024 and partition order dated 30.01.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the revenue field staff prepared the Wandajaat in accordance with longstanding possession and family partition but Revenue Officer with connivance of petitioners made amendments in Wandajaat and approved the same. That the respondents were not given opportunity to file objections. That the ADC (R), Okara, vide order dated 30.04.2024 dismissed the appeal of respondents against the law. That learned Additional Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, vide impugned order dated 24.10.2024 accepted the appeal of respondents and directed the Revenue Officer to partition afresh. Finally dismissal of the revision petition has been prayed for.
4. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. Record available with the case file as well as the impugned orders were also perused carefully.
5. Examination of record transpires that Revenue Officer vide order dated 30.01.2023 carried out the partition proceedings of joint Khewat No.15 bearing Khatoni Nos.77-83 comprising land measuring 46-Kanal and 18-Marla located in Chak 14/1AL, Tehsil Renala Khurd, District Okara. Perusal of order of the Revenue Officer reveals that both the parties were given due opportunities of being heard. Revenue Officer prepared Wandajaat keeping in view the entitlement, possession, etc. During hearing proceedings, the petitioners placed on record the property documents. The respondent was asked to specifically pin-point what his specific objection was on the partition proceedings. The respondent indicated a specific khasra number which he wanted to be excluded from his share. But the khasra number the respondent wanted to be excluded from his share remained under possession of the respondent and father of the respondent had sold a piece from that land to Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and got payment for that land. Now, that land cannot be excluded from the share of the respondent and included in the share of the petitioners. The respondents could not rebut this fact and kept quiet and could not highlight any other infringement of their rights. Thus, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Okara, vide order dated 30.04.2024 rightly rejected the appeal of the respondent. It is clear that learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, wrapped up the whole proceedings by passing a stereotype order, without considering the record and facts.
6. It is held that mere claiming that objections were not appreciated by the Revenue Officer during partition proceedings is not a valid ground to remand the case unless it is proven to the Appellate or the Revisional Authorities that the objections are worthy of consideration and are tenable.
7. In view of the above discussion., instant revision having legal force and merit is hereby accepted. Resultantly, impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, is hereby set aside and orders passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Okara, and Tehsildar / AC-I, Renala Khurd, dated 30.04.2024 and 30.01.2023, respectively, are hereby upheld. Case file be consigned to record room after its due compilation and completion.
MQ/5/Rev Appeal allowed.