' Admittedly, the private parties are co-owners in land comprising Khata No,142, measuring 601 Kanals, 15 Marlas in village Kotla Khan Muhammad, Tehsil and District Rajanpur. On 15-10-1992, the respondents filed an application for partition of the said land. I may further note here that admittedly the respondents are owners of 361 Kanals, one Marla while the petitioners are owners of 240 Kanals, 15 Marlas in the said joint land. After hearing the parties, the matter was referred to the Girdawar Halqa for preparation of the partition plan in accordance with the possession of the parties. The proposal was prepared and was considered by the Revenue Officer who allowed the application on 19-6-1994, partitioning the land in accordance with the shares of the parties and keeping in view their possession. The partition proposals were approved with the consent of the parties. Against this order, an appeal was filed which was dismissed by the Collector, Rajanpur District, on 17-9-1995. A revision was dismissed by the Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan Division, on 11-11-1998 while the second revision was dismissed by a Member Judicial, Board of Revenue, on 15- 3-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the provisions of section 150 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, a Girdawar could not have been appointed to determine the mode of partition and as such the entire proceedings are coram non judice. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relies on the provisions of the Land Record Manual to urge that the Revenue Officer only ordered a local inquiry and the same was then dealt with by him in presence of the parties. He vehemently urges that no substantial objection has been raised against the mode of partition proposed by the Girdawar and later approved by the Revenue Officer.
3. I have gone through the available records. I have already noted above the respective shares of the parties in the suit-land and called upon the learned counsel to demonstrate as to whether the said mode of D partition affects the title or possession of the petitioners.. So far as title is concerned, there is no dispute that the land has been partitioned in accordance with the record and admitted shares of the parties. Similar is the matter of possession. It has been sought to be argued that classification-wise some inferior land has been given to the petitioner in partition.
However, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the said objection. In fact, I find that neither before the A.C.-I Grade, the Collector, the Commissioner or the Member, Board of Revenue any such objection with any details or particulars has been raised. I, therefore, find that no exception can be taken to the partition thus ordered by the AC-I Grade and confirmed by the other Revenue Officers.
4. Now coming to the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is true that section 150 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, does mandate that under the relevant Chapter of partition only a Revenue Officer can act in the matter of partition. However, the Girdawar has not acted as such. He was deputed by the Revenue Officer to prepare the plan in terms .Of para. 18.10 of the Land Records Manual (Chapter-18). The plan was submitted, the matter was taken up by the Revenue Officer and he proceeded to order partition with the consent of the parties in accordance with the said plan. He cannot, therefore, be said to have delegated his authority or to have subjugated in the proceedings in any manner to the Girdawar.
5. I am also in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that substantial justice having been done and there being no reduction either in the matter of title or possession in the shares of any of the parties, the impugned partition order cannot be interferred with in these proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.