Malik MASOOD AHMAD Versus IQBAL AHMAD

ORDER

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--- This revision petition has been filed against order dated 24-9-2013, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondents Nos.2 to 4 submitted an application before learned District Collector, Vehari for execution of conveyance deed and framing of separate wandas. Learned District Collector by assuming the non-existing powers ordered the execution of conveyance deed and also framing of separate wanda of respondents Nos.2 to 4 through ex parte order. The petitioner on coming to know about that ex parte order, submitted an application to learned District Collector for review of the order, but it was dismissed on 4-8-2012. He further argued that according to the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab on 19-5-2012, Tehsildar has to attest the mutation and execution of conveyance deed is not required. Learned District Collector by ignoring the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab on the subject passed the order dated 26-2-2012. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed without appreciating his contention and consultation of record. The petitioner and the respondents are maintaining their possession according to their entitlement and the wandas are to be framed keeping in view possession of the parties. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents submitted an application for framing of their separate wandas, upon which report from the revenue field staff was called for. Thereafter, learned District Collector duly summoned the other co-sharers. But, they chose to remain absent from the court. Therefore, after fulfilment of the procedure required for process service including the proclamation in the press, they were proceeded ex parte. Then, learned District Collector lawfully ordered the execution of conveyance deed and framing of separate wandas in the name of respondents. The review petition of the petitioner was dismissed on 24-9-2013 after hearing contention of the parties. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.

4(sic) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that learned District Collector, Vehari vide order dated 26-6-2012 approved wanda No.1 of the respondents measuring 57-k, 15-m, situated in Chak No.152/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari. The operative part is as under:--

5. This order was challenged by the present petitioner through review petition before learned District Collector, Vehari which was dismissed vide order dated 4-8-2012. The operative para is reproduced as under:--

6. Being dissatisfied with the order, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, which also met the same fate vide order dated 24-9-2013. The concluding para reads as under:--

Arguments heard. Record perused. The respondents are co-allottees under Dakhilkari Scheme 1887 and they are in possession of land to the extent of their shares. The lower court vide order dated 26-6-2012 rightly approved separate Wanda No.1 for them after observing all codal formalities and the impugned order stands implemented in the revenue record. The application of the appellant for the review of this order was also dismissed by the lower court with full justification. I find no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned orders which are upheld and the appeal, having no legal force is hereby dismissed".

7. The perusal of record shows that parties (petitioners and respondents) are lessees of impugned land, whereas provincial government is owner of such land. Section 135 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 is relevant section for parties, which reads as under:--

Any joint owner of land may apply to a Revenue Officer for partition of his share in the land if:-

(a) At the date of the application the share is recorded under Chapter VI as belonging to him; or

(b) His right to the share has been established by a decree which is till subsisting at that date; or

(c) A written acknowledgement of that right has been executed by all persons interested in the admission or denial thereof'.

In instant case, parties are not owners of the impugned land. Rather, provincial Govt. is the owner. Parties are claiming partition of the impugned land as lessees. Hence, section ibid is not attracted in this case. So, the partition proceedings which have been undertaken by the learned lower forums are baseless and nullity in the eyes of law. Hence, not only revision petition is dismissed rather all orders passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, dated 24-9-2013 and order passed by learned District Collector, Vehari, dated 26-6-2012 regarding partition of the impugned land, which is owned by the provincial government, are set aside. Learned District Collector, Vehari, is directed to reverse the possession as was before passing of any partition order about the impugned land in revenue record, within one month of receipt of this order, under intimation to this court.

HBT/24/Rev. Order accordingly.