MUHAMMAD KHALID Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM

ORDER

SAQIB MANAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VII).--- The instant revision petition has been filed under Section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 against order dated 26.06.2023 passed by learned Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division whereby revision petition filed by the present respondents was accepted and orders passed by the lower courts were set aside and position prior to partition proceedings was restored.

2.Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Naib Tehsildar/ AC-I, Abdul Hakeem vide order dated 07.06.2022 partitioned land of joint khewat No. 137/127, khatuni Nos 556 to 560, measuring 159-k, 16-m according to Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year, 2019-20, situated in Mauza Jalla Pehore, Tehsil Kabirwala District Khanewal Feeling aggrieved by that order, the present respondents filed an appeal in the court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Rev.), Khanewal which was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2023 and partition order was upheld. Then revision petition was filed by the present respondents before the Addl. Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division which was accepted vide order dated 20.06.2023 through which orders passed by the lower courts were set aside and position prior to initiation of partition proceedings was restored. Hence, this revision petition.

3.The counsel for petitioner Malik Jamshed Akhtar Vains filed written arguments wherein it was contended that the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court is against the law and facts of the case. The observation of the lower court that the land of joint khata contained Ghair Mumkin Abadi, shops and residential area and revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to partition the said land, is absolutely incorrect. Actually, the land in question is agricultural and partition of the same falls within the ambit and jurisdiction of revenue authorities. The respondents did not take ground that the Naib Tehsildar was not empowered to partition the land in question. The respondents absented themselves after appearing before the Naib Tehsildar and they filed time barred appeal before the ADCR. The Revenue Officer while framing wandajat of the parties kept in view previous possessions, entitlement of the parties, classification of land, means of irrigation, paths etc. and distributed the land of joint khata strictly in accordance with law after observance of legal and codal formalities. Earlier land of joint khata was partitioned in the year, 2010 which was got set aside by the respondents. The present petitioner had received land in wanda No. 2 of the 2010 partition. However, this partition order was set aside by ADCR on 17.11.2014 while the petitioner remained ex-parte. The petitioner remained unaware of order of ADCR dated 17.11.2014. He remained in peaceful possession of the land in accordance with 2010 partition. He has constructed his dera and tube well in this land. He also received compensation of this land from motorway authorities in 2015. Upon learning about the order dated 17.11.2014 of ADCR the petitioner again initiated the partition application on 06.02.2021 and got his wanda restored on 07.06.2022 by the orders of Revenue Officer. The appeal filed by the respondents against the partition order dated 07.06.2022 was rightly and justifiably dismissed by the ADCR, Khanewal with the observation that land of joint khata was partitioned in accordance with law. But the Addl. Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division set aside the orders passed by the lower courts without consultation of record and also by not applying independent judicious mind. Under the law, each and every land owner has right to get partition of his land. As the impugned order was passed without consultation of record therefore it is liable to be set aside by accepting this revision petition. Finally, it was prayed that revision petition may be accepted.

4.The counsel for respondents Mr. Iqbal Khan Sargana submitted written arguments in which he contended that during partition proceedings, the respondents were not issued any notice or summon to secure their attendance. Therefore, the partition order was passed in absence of the respondent and they were condemned unheard. Through the ex-parte partition order, land of joint khata was not partitioned in accordance with law. The property is admittedly commercial/residential in nature. As such the Revenue Officer has exceeded his lawful jurisdiction by partitioning the impugned property. The petitioner was given undue benefit at the cost of respondents by inclusion of better quality land in his wanda while inferior quality land was given to the respondents. The appeal filed by the respondents against the disputed partition order was dismissed by the ADCR, Khanewal vide order dated 08.03.2023. Then the respondents filed appeal in the court of Addl. Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division which was rightly accepted vide order dated 26.06.2023 through which orders passed by the lower courts were set aside and position prior to initiation of partition proceedings was restored. The said order was passed in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing and consultation of record. No irregularity or illegality has been committed in the order passed by the lower court which is liable to be upheld by dismissing this revision petition. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.

5.I have minutely considered arguments of counsel for the parties and have also perused record of the case file as well as the impugned orders. On examination of record, it transpired that the matter involved in this case is regarding the partition of land of above mentioned joint khata. Examination of the record has indicated that the impugned property was initially partitioned by the Revenue Officer on 21.09.2010 on an application moved by Haji Muhammad Ayoub in which the present petitioner received land in wanda No. 2. The present respondents Muhammad Aslam assailed this partition order before the Additional District Collector and succeeded in obtaining a cancellation of the said partition vide order dated 17.11.2014. This order of the ADCR was assailed before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and upheld vide order dated 18.12.2015 of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue). Thereafter the present petitioner submitted a fresh application of partition on 06.02.2021 in compliance with the order of the ADCR/ACR. The land was thus partitioned afresh by the concern Revenue Officer in 07.06.2022. Examination of the proceeding before the Revenue Officer has indicated that the present respondent Muhammad Aslam, etc. joined the proceedings before the Revenue Officer but later on they avoided the proceedings. The record has also indicated that they also failed to submit wanda before the Revenue Officer so much that the matter had be taken to the Hon'ble High Court Multan Bench in Writ Petition No. 1364/2022 by the present petitioner Muhammad Khalid. The Hon'ble Lahore High Court directed that the partition proceedings be finalized within a period of 03 months. In compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Revenue Officer partitioned the land on 07.06.2022. At this point I would like to comment upon the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Revenue Officer had proceeded against them ex-parte. In this regard it is stated that it is the respondent who had gotten the earlier partition order cancelled and obtained the order for refresh partition. It is beyond common sense that how can the respondents raise objection that they were not aware of the fresh partition proceedings. The Revenue Officer while framing wandajat of the parties kept in view previous possessions, entitlement of the parties, classification of land, means of irrigation, paths etc. and distributed the land of joint khata strictly in accordance with law after observance of legal and codal formalities. The appeal filed by the respondents against the partition order was rightly and justifiably dismissed by the ADCR, Khanewal with the observation that land of joint khata was partitioned in accordance with law. But the Addl. Commissioner (Cons:), Multan Division set aside the orders passed by the lower courts on the ground that the impugned property is commercial/residential in nature. At this point I would also like to delve in-to the issue of nature of property and applicability of section 135 thereupon. In this regard, it is stated that it is admitted between the parties that, the impugned land is situated in Mauza Jalla Pehore in Tehsil Kabir Wala. It is also admitted between the parties that, the said land was initially partitioned in 2010 and secondly in 2022. Motorway was constructed in 2015 and due to that certain shops have been constructed in adjoining area. The basic question which I would like to attend to is; whether or not construction of motorway and shops stops the applicability of Land Revenue Act, 1967? In this regard, section 3 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 solicits the attention of the parties. The original text of section 3 states that:

However, section 3 was amended in 2019 vide Act XVIII of 2019 and further amended in 2026 vide Ordinance III of 2026. The amended text of section states that:

It appears that, the learned Additional Commissioner has failed to understand the intent of legislature behind the above amendments. In my opinion the intent of the legislature in the above amendment is quite obvious whereby only those lands/areas are excluded from operation of Land Revenue Act, 1967 which are notified by the Board of Revenue, Punjab. I also understand that word "partition" does not appear in the text of amended section 3. But at the same time it is not expressively barred. Thus Revenue Officer can exercise powers in this case since it is not expressively stated rather necessarily implied. I consider this the duty of court to expand the applicability of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and fill in any gaps which come to notice during practical implementation of the said law. Now looking at the facts of the case it is crystal clear that the first partition was held in 2010 then again in 2022. No one objected to the issue of jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no notification of Board of Revenue, Punjab issued under section 3 of the said property/mauza. The opinion of this court in such like cases is also clearly spelled out in a similar matter and reported at 2025 CLC 585 . It is held that the revenue authorities are very much empowered to carryout the said partition. Mere construction of few shops does not debar the jurisdiction of Revenue Officer. The impugned land is predominantly agriculture in character and Board of Revenue, Punjab has not issued any notification under section 3 of Land Revenue Act, 1967. It is, therefore held that the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the lower appellate court is against the law and facts of the case. The observation of the lower court that the land of joint khata contained Ghair Mumkin Abadi, shops and residential area and revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to partition the said land, is held to be incorrect. Actually, the land in question is largely agricultural and partition of the same falls within the ambit and jurisdiction of revenue authorities. In this background of the case it is held that the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 is suffering from legal and factual infirmities which calls for interference by this court. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the orders dated 07.06.2022 and 08.03.2023 passed by the lower courts are upheld. This case was reserved for announcement of order on 04.02.2026 at camp Multan which is being announced today. Parties be informed through their respective counsels. File be consigned to record room after its compilation.

MQ/18/Rev Revision allowed.