GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs JAN MUHAMMAD and another
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the nature of possession regarding specific agricultural land (Killas Nos. 4 and 5) in District Bahawalnagar. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were co-sharers in the land following a joint purchase. However, upon purchase, the vendor delivered exclusive possession of the disputed Killas to respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the petitioner was recorded in the Khasra Girdawari as a tenant under respondent No. 1. The petitioner later challenged this status, asserting that as a co-sharer, he could not legally be a tenant under another co-sharer. After a series of revenue proceedings, the Board of Revenue restored the entry reflecting the petitioner as a tenant, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a co-sharer in possession of specific land is entitled to cultivate it or lease it to another, including a co-sharer. The Court affirmed that a co-sharer can indeed hold the status of a tenant under another co-sharer if the latter has been granted exclusive possession of that specific portion of the joint property.
- Can a co-sharer in joint land be recorded as a tenant under another co-sharer?
- Does the granting of exclusive possession of a specific portion of joint land to one co-sharer entitle that co-sharer to lease it to another person, including a co-sharer?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to Killas Nos. 4 and 5 of Square No, 42 in Chak No, 10, Gajbani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. These Killas were part of the land sold by Muhammad Hussain, brother of the petitioner, in July 1971, jointly to the petitioner and Jan Muhammad, respondent No,
1. At the time of the sale Muhammad Hussain delivered possession to the petitioner and respondent No, 1, of different and separate parcels of the land. Thus, the possession of the disputed Killas was given to respondent No,
1. After the sale the petitioner was shown to be in cultivating possession of the Killas in dispute as tenant under respondent No, 1 in the Khasra Girdawari.
2. In the Khasra Girdawari for the crops of Rabi and Kharif 1983 the entries in respect of the Killas in dispute were changed by the Patwari, for, now instead of continuing to be recorded as tenant under respondent No, 1, the petitioner was shown to be in possession of the said Killas as a co- sharer. On learning about the alteration respondent No, 1 moved an application before the Collector for the .Correction of the Khasra Girdawari. The Collector allowed the application and directed that the earlier entries be repeated. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the order of the Collector was set aside. Respondent No, 1 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. This was dismissed. However, on review the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored that of the Collector. The petitioner filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order made in review by the Board of Revenue but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the petitioner was admittedly a co-sharer alongwith respondent No, 1 in the Killas in dispute. He could not therefore be described as a tenant under respondent No,
1. Consequently, the impugned order of the Board of Revenue could not be sustained.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition is without any merit. As already stated, at the time of the sale the vendor had given the possession of the Killas in dispute to respondent No,
1. It was open to respondent No, 1 to cultivate these Killas himself or let them out to another person. In this case he chose to get the Killas in dispute cultivated through the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore clearly a tenant under respondent No, 1 and the Khasra Girdawari for the crops prior to Kharif 1982 correctly represented the position on the spot. The contention that a co-sharer could not also be a tenant is in the circumstances without any merit. This petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.