1988 CLC 2443

NOORAN Versus SUBHAN

Citation1988 CLC 2443

CourtLahore High Court

Case No.R.O.R. No.231 of 1987

Judge(s)Syed Sarfraz Hussain, Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue Mst. NOORAN‑‑Petitioner

ResultRevision dismissed

ORDER

This is a revision petition tiled under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 17‑11‑1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that before consolidation the Khata of the petitioner was joint with the respondents who are her brothers and mother. She is residing about 22 miles away from his village. During consolidation operations she was kept in the dark and without her consent the Khata was kept joint. She came to know about this situation in 1985 when the respondents refused to give her share of produce. She has prayed that in the interest of justice her Khata be separated.

3. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has stated that he has no objection if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted but Sultan respondent No.3 (a co‑sharer) has opposed the separation and has stated that the petitioner was fully aware of the consolidation operations. She did not object to it at the relevant time. Later or, she filed a badly time‑barred appeal which was rightly dismissed by the Collector (Cons.) and that order was upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.).

4. I have considered the arguments and have examined the record of the case. The scope of separating a joint Khata during consolidation operations is of limited nature. It can be partitioned if all the right- holders give their consent in writing, or if a joint owner owns land individually in addition to his share in the joint Khata and the joint Khata can also be partitioned to separate the share of widows and minors. In the instant case none of these circumstances exists. Hence the plea of the petitioner for separating the joint Khata is hardly acceptable. Furthermore the appeal of the petitioner before the Collector (Cons.) was badly time‑barred by more than four years. Since there was no explanation for this inordinate delay, the appeal was rightly rejected by the Collector. No illegality seems to have been committed by the Courts below in rejecting the petition of the petitioner. The revision petition is therefore dismissed accordingly.

A . A . /281/R . Revision dismissed.