' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL III).---This revision petition has been filed against order dated 11-12-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, whereby appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the orders passed by learned District Officer (Revenue)/Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal, are without jurisdiction as according to Rule 6-A of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, the learned District Officer (Revenue) has no power to remand the case. But, learned Additional Commissioner totally ignored this vital fact of the case while passing the impugned orders. The appeal was filed against the refusal of the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings but learned District Officer (Revenue) set aside the entire partition order passed by the Tehsildar based on the family settlement. Learned Additional Commissioner also dismissed appeal of the petitioners without consultation of the record and appreciating contention of the parties. The petitioners are self cultivators of the land of their share. The parties were maintaining their possession according to family settlement. Learned Additional Commissioner did not take into consideration the material points raised by the petitioners during their arguments. All the parties are residing in the same village. However, most of the parties also have their residences in various cities. Sajjad Anwar moved an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, which was rejected on 25-2-2010.
However, appeal filed against that order was accepted vide order dated 4-3-2011 by learned District Officer (Revenue). Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tehsildar/ AC-I passed order dated 16- 9 2008, which was against the provisions of natural justice, whereby the respondents were'condemned unheard, which is against the well settled provisions of law. Therefore, the partition order was rightly set aside by learned District Officer (Revenue) after hearing contention of the parties and consultation of record. The address of respondent No.1 was given village Rakar, which is wrong address as the respondent is residing at 26/3, F-Block Model Town, Lahore.
Moreover, the advertisement for securing attendance of the respondents was given in the local newspaper. The Tehsildar while passing the partition order did not keep in mind classification of land. The petitioners were given better quality land located on the metaled road while the respondents were given inferior quality land. The Tehsildar just endorsed the Wanda of the parties which were proposed by the revenue field staff. Similarly, no path was given to the land of respondents, which is against the principles of partition. No family settlement was reached between the parties as it was alleged by the petitioners. The instant revision petition has been filed against the concurrent orders passed by learned lower courts after hearing contention of the parties and consultation of record. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that Javaid Anwar present respondent No.4 submitted an application to Tehsildar/AC-1, Depalpur for partition of land of joint khata bearing khewat No.25/27, khatuni Nos.141 to 148, measuring 1653-kanals, 19-marlas, situated in Mauza Rakarke, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. The Tehsildar vide order dated 16-9-2008 partitioned the land of said joint khata and framed wandajat of the parties. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Sajjad Anwar, the present respondent No.1, filed an appeal before learned District Officer (Revenue), Okara, which was accepted vide order dated 4-3-2011 and the case was remanded to the Tehsildar, Okara with the direction to partition the land of joint khata afresh. The operative pars of the order is reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
6. This order was challenged by the present petitioners before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal, through appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 11-12- 2012. The operative part of the order reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}}
7. The main stance of the petitioner is that the parties are in possession of impugned land as a consequence of family partition arrived at between the parties back in year 1970 and further reiterated in year 1990. He admitted that such partition has not been entertained in terms of section 147 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, but as an evidence of such partition. He can produce khasra girdawari showing the possession of the respective parties as per such partition from 1970 to on wards. Accordingly, the petitioner produced copies of khasra girdawari for the year Kharif 1972 to Kharif 1976. The respondent contradicted this contention of family partition and produced the detailed chart (annex-A) showing the possession of contesting parties on impugned land from 1971 to 2008.
8. The chart clearly shows that none of the party is in continuous possession of particular pieces of land from 1990 to on wards establishing the fact that possession has been changing between the parties and no party is in continuous possession of specific piece of land, leading to the conclusion that no family partition was effected between the parties.
9. In circumstances where the main contention of the petitioner has been defeated out of examination of relevant record. The revision petition is left with no merits. Hence, the same is dismissed and impugned order dated 11-12-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, is upheld.