' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J. --- Through this writ petition, Ghulam Sarwar and Mst. Najma have assailed various orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, which arose out of partition proceedings carried out under the W.P. Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The precise facts are that Abdul Majeed, Ghulam Fareed, Abdul Hameed, Sharman Mai, Jannat Mai and Zarina Mai filed a petition before the Revenue Officer, Multan seeking partition of Khewat No 62 situated in Chak No, 14/F, Multan. The application moved by the aforementioned was allowed vide order dated 18.07.2001. Without going into details, the Revenue Officer concerned proceeded to accept the proposed wanda of the aforementioned respondents. Since the present petitioners were directly and adversely affected, they preferred an appeal before the District Officer (Revenue), Multan, who allowed the same and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar concerned.
Tehsildar passed a fresh order dated 13.05.2004. The new wanda proposed by the respondents herein and endorsed by the Revenue Officer was not acceptable to the petitioners. Once again, they filed an appeal before District Officer (Revenue), Multan, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.12.2004. Both the aforesaid orders dated 13.05.2004 and 29.12.2004 were assailed by the petitioners before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan but he also refused to interfere with the orders passed by Tehsildar and District Officer (Revenue), Multan, dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners vide order dated 20.12.2006. All these orders were the subject-matter of ROR No, 2460/2006. As it is, the Member Board of Revenue, upheld the afore-mentioned orders passed by the subordinate revenue authorities, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein vide order dated 10.05.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction; that the principles regarding the division of joint land were totally ignored; that the land on which the petitioners had built their houses and they have been residing there for two decades were ordered to be given to the respondents without any rhyme or reason; that the entire joint land between co-sharers was required to be partitioned off and there could not be any pick and choose. He criticizes that a separate wanda was created for respondents Nos. 5 to 10 herein, without making necessary adjustments regarding the land to be handed over to the petitioners and other co-sharers. He wondered how partial partition of joint land could be ordered.
4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 55 supported the impugned orders. It was argued that the petitioners are cousins of respondents Nos. 5 >to 10 herein, but they have been enjoying the usufruct of the entire land, without sharing the produce of the land in question. However, it was conceded that the land on which the petitioners had built their houses was wrongly given to the respondents. On a query of the Court, it was affirmed that no particular wanda was created or separated for the petitioners. In other words, they were left in the lurch.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. From a perusal of the revenue record annexed to the writ petition, it is pretty clear that Khewat No, 62 admeasures 356 Kanals, 1 Marla, and the share of respondents Nos. 5 to 10, who had made an application for partition of the joint land, comes to 22 Kanals, 18 Marlas. Ghulam Sarwar, the petitioner is stated to be owner of 10 Kanals, 18 Marlas. Strangely enough, he purchased another peace of land measuring 10 Kanals through mutation No, 662 attested on 10.11.1998, but in all the impugned orders, he has been denied the ownership of this land on the ground that someone has instituted a suit for pre-emption regarding the aforesaid sale mutation. The approach of the Revenue Authorities, who are considered to be experts in their field, is fallacious and wholly untenable, to say the least. The institution of a pre-emption suit regarding a particular sale does not lead to the inevitable result that the vendee would ipso facto stand deprived of the same, and there is no guarantee that a pre-emption suit would succeed in all eventualities. Therefore, as long as Ghulam Sarwar, the petitioner herein is not deprived of the land purchased by him, he is to be regarded as absolute owner of 10 Kanal land purchased by him through mutation No, 662 sanctioned on 10.11.1998. The exclusion of this land from the name of Ghulam Sarwar is a sufficient ground to set aside all the impugned orders. Even otherwise, it defies comprehension how a Revenue Officer can make pick and choose separating a parcel of land from a Khewat, while leaving the rest of the land comprised in that khewat joint amongst the other co-sharers.
Whenever partition is to be made amongst the co-sharers, it is to be made for good and every co- sharer of joint land is to be assigned an independent parcel of land so as to put to an end to the fracas or dissentions amongst them afterwards. In this respect, I am tempted to make reference to a judgment of this Court reported as 'Ghulam Rasool and another v. Muhammad Khalid and two others.' (2006 YLR 2298). The relevant portion therefrom reads as under:- "In a similar situation, matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandi Shah v. Bahara Shaha and others (AIR 1930 Lahore 286 (1) and it was held that suit for partial partition should be dismissed. In another matter Honourable Supreme Court of this country in the case of Jan Mohammad and another v. Abdul Rashid and 5 others (1993 SCMR 1463), it was mandated that entire joint holding should be put to partition and part thereof which are not partitionable or under heavy constrictions, other co-sharers can be compensated by way of money and it was so held on the principle that possession of cone al-sharers in law is possession an all the co-owners. Identical view was taken by an Honourable Division Bench from Karachi jurisdiction in the case of Ghazi Qaiser Pervaiz and another v. Ghazi Faisal Pervaiz and another (2000 CLC 519). Refusal to partition a part of joint holding, has wisdom behind it because some parts of the joint holding may be of much more value, as compared to its other parts. Party opting to come for partition, should not be permitted to pick and chose and to have share in valuable parts of the joint holdings by leaving out its parts with lesser value. Each owner is owner of every inch of joint holding to the extent of his share and thus I am of the considered view that a part of the joint holdings cannot be permitted to be partitioned, leaving out major parts thereof, as joint."
7. In the case of `Noor Muhammad and others v Allah Ditta and others' (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198), it was held by the august Supreme Court as under:- -it is well-settled that a co-owner in a joint property is not entitled without assent or acquiescence of the other co-shareri to exclude partition of joint property or to select a particular portion for the purpose of partition. He is required to seek the partition of the landed property as a whole."
8. It goes without saying that all the authorities are bound to follow the law laid down by the apex Court under Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
9. It is time that the Revenue Authorities were reminded of the detailed rules laid down in Chapter 18 of the Land Records Manual. It seems that they have vowed to honour all the rules more in the breach than in the observance. Otherwise, no Revenue Officer worth his name would give his blessings to the mode of a partition in which houses in possession and occupation of a party are to be given to the other party. As stated above, it was conceded even by the learned counsel representing respondents Nos. 5 to 10 that the houses in possession in occupation of the petitioners herein were not to be given to his client. Again, the approach of the Revenue Authorities left a lot to be desired. The manner in which the proceedings were carried out by the Revenue Officer concerned and endorsed blindfolded by his high-ups in the revenue hierarchy leaves a question mark over the competence of the officers working in the revenue department.
10. For what has been stated above, the impugned orders dated 18.07.2001, 13.05.2004 and 29.12.2004 passed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Revenue Officer, Multan, who would undertake the partition proceedings afresh, deciding the same within three months from the receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the petition for partition of Khewat No, 62 forming part of Chak No, 14/F, Multan.
Disposed of. Case ramanded.