' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER JUDICIAL-III.---This revision petition has been filed against order dated 22-7-2008, passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, through which revision petition of the present respondents was accepted.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents are maintaining possession over and above their entitlement. The joint khata of 11 land owners was partitioned, out of which, just respondents Nos.1 and 2 challenged the partition order. The said respondents assailed the partition order dated 23-9-2004 before learned District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, through appeal, which was dismissed and partition made by the Tehsildar was upheld. But, learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, while accepting revision petition of the said respondents remanded the case to the Tehsildar for deciding the case afresh. Under the law, learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, was not empowered to remand the case as these powers are only vested in the Members, Board of Revenue, Punjab. Thus, the impugned order is the result of assumption of non-existing powers. The said respondents are trying to get inclusion of land bearing khasra No,60/22 in his wanda, which is in possession of the petitioner since long.
The petitioners have installed tube well and also orchard in the said khasra number. The impugned order is not legal in the eyes of law. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners are in possession of land over and above their entitlement and through this protracted litigation, they are trying to continue with their illegal and unlawful gain at the cost of respondents. Therefore, the respondents adopted right course of action provided under the law i,e, partition of the land of joint khata. Through the partition, land owned and possessed by the respondents was included in the wanda of petitioners, which was against the mode of partition agreed by the landowners. The respondents filed an appeal against that order, which was unjustifiably dismissed by learned District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, without consultation of the record and appreciating contention of the respondents.
Learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, rightly and reasonably accepted appeal of the respondents and the Tehsildar was directed to frame wandas of the parties afresh in accordance with law after hearing contention of the parties. No irregularity or illegality has been committed in the impugned order. The petitioners shall have ample opportunity to put- forth their view point. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that Ghulam Muhammad respondent No, 1 submitted to the Tehsildar/AC-I, Shujabad for partition of land of joint khata, who, partitioned the land of joint khata vide order dated 18-9-2004 and wandas of the parties were framed accordingly.
Aggrieved by the order, Ghulam Muhammad etc. The present respondents preferred an appeal before learned District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, which was dismissed vide order dated 31-7- 2007. The operative para of the order is as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' This order was again challenged by Ghulam Muhammad etc. The present respondents through revision petition in the court of learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, which was accepted on 22-7-1987 and the Tehsildar/AC-I, Khanewal was directed to decide the case afresh.
The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}} ' Vide above order, the matter has been remanded by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, which is violation of provision of Rule 6-A of Land Revenue Rules 1968, which reads as under:-- "In an appeal under section 161, or in a revision under section 164(1) against the final order of a Revenue Officer in a case, no Appellate or Revisional authority other than the Board of Revenue shall have the power to remand the case"
'In circumstances, where learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), has assumed non-existent powers, without going into merits of the case, so the same may not prejudice the mind of the learned lower court, the revision petition is accepted, impugned order dated 22-7-2008 passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, is set aside and the matter is remanded to learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, to decide the case himself as per law and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.