SHAHID KHAN, J. Petitioners through the instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, have called in question vires of the Orders passed by the Member-I Board of Revenue Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and other revenue forums, whereby his application for rejection of the partition application stood dismissed.
2. Concise facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed an application for partition of her landed property before the Assistant Commissioner Tank and petitioner, filed a petition for rejection of the partition application on the ground that the property has been developed into residential character and revenue authority have no jurisdiction for partition of the same; and that a declaratory suit is also pending before the learned Civil Judge-III, Tank. The Assistant Commissioner Tank, vide order dated 09.12.2020 dismissed the petition. Appeal of petitioners, filed before Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Tank, was also dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2021. Their revenue revisions too were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, D.I.Khan Division D.I.Khan, and Member-I Board of Revenue Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, respectively vide orders dated 01.06.2021 and 23.11.2021; hence, the instant petition before this Court.
3. Arguments heard and record gone through.
4. Perusal of the record transpires that the petitioners are mainly aggrieved of the dismissal of their petition for rejection of partition application filed by the respondent No.1 for partition of her landed property; and after their failure in getting relief from the revenue hierarchy, they have preferred the instant petition. Perusal of the order dated 09.12.2020 of Assistant Commissioner reveals that the petition of petitioners was principally dismissed on the ground that Tehsildar was deputed to suggest mode of partition according to on-spot position. Collector Tank while dismissing appeal of petitioners held that the proceedings are in progress and after the report of Ahle-commission, the position would become clear; and thereafter the said orders were maintained by the higher revenue fora including Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
5. Record manifests that petitioners without proper partition and even without obtaining any NOC or approval of the concerned authority, as required by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Site Development Schemes) Rules, 2005, are developing a residential colony. According to the report of Patwari Halqa, dated 13.05.2019, available on the file, petitioners have marked plotting in Khasra Nos. 31, 32, 33, 21, 209, 210, however, there is no constructed house, which fact indicates that the nature and status of the property has not yet been converted into residential one. Mere plotting does not take away the powers and jurisdiction of the revenue authority for the purpose of partition.
6. It is also very important to note that in the roots of present partition proceedings there is a chequered history of civil litigation. Way back in the year 2005 Mst. Ghulam Bibi (the respondent No.1 herein) instituted a declaratory suit seeking her share in the legacy of her father after cancellation of gift mutation, executed in favour of her brother namely Amanullah, and her suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge-I Tank vide Judgment/decree dated 15.07.2011 followed by dismissal of her appeal vide Judgment dated 24.02.2012 of learned District Judge Tank. However, in Civil Revision No.154-D/2012 filed by Mst. Ghulam Bibi, this Court vide Judgment dated 28.11.2014 held her entitled to the decree as prayed for and accordingly she held entitled in the bequest of her father. Amanullah, the then defendant, preferred a Civil Appeal No.424/2015 before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and the same was dismissed vide Judgment dated 17.03.2016. As far present petitioners are concerned, they purchased the property from said defendant Amanullah through mutations No.930 dated 04.11.2010, 1030 dated 30.12.2013 and 885 dated 26.02.2016; and then they preferred a Civil Misc.
Application No.4296 of 2017 under Section 12(2) CPC before the worthy Apex Court, against judgment dated 17.03.2016 in C.A. No.424/2015. The said CMA was declined by the worthy Apex Court vide Judgment dated 14.12.2017 due to the fact that the property was purchased by petitioners in the lis-pendence. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 launched partition proceedings in December-2018, which are being opposed by present petitioners/subsequent purchasers with a view to put the petitioner once again to route through the litigation before Civil Court wondering her property for which she has already passed through 13 years long civil litigation.
7. Undeniably, petitioners were fully aware of the share of respondent in the joint chunk of land under partition, but they intentionally, in order to cause further delay and to create complications, started developing colony over the suit property. The lady who initially struggled for her rights against her brother through a protracted litigation, but after attaining her rights, present petitioners who are subsequent purchasers, have flexed muscles against her to start a new episode of litigation to keep her legal heirs away from her rights for too long, and it is very unfortunate that she during lifetime could not get the fruit of her own property. Worthy Apex Court in the case of "Mst.
Parveen (deceased) through LRs Vs. Muhammad Pervaiz and others" (2022 SCMR 64) was pleased to hold:
12. We may once again state that, we are dismayed to observe the all too frequent practice in Pakistan of male heirs resorting to fraud and other tactics to deprive female heirs from their inheritance. While this deprivation causes suffering to those deprived, it also unnecessarily taxes the judicial system of the country, resulting in a needless waste of resources. Each and every day that a male heir deprives a female heir is also an abomination because it contravenes what has been ordained by Almighty Allah.
8. The factum of plotting and non-construction of any house over the land under partition, as reported by the Patwari in the report dated 13.05.2019, further makes it clear that the plotting has been done recently. The plotting of colony being without any proper legal authentication of the concerned authority cannot place any legal bar on the revenue authority to conduct partition of the land to safeguard the right of all the co-sharers in the each and every inch of a joint land. One co-sharer is the protector of possession of all the others, as per established law of the land and a co-sharer with symbolic possession even can safeguard his rights. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the cases of "Faiz Ullah and others vs. Dilawar Hussain and others" (2022 SCMR 1647), "Faqir Ali and others vs. Sakina Bibi and others" (PLD 2022 SC 85), "Khan Muhammad through L.Rs. and others vs. Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others" (2017 SCMR 1476) and "Mst. Gohar Khanum and others vs. Mst. Jamila Jan and others" (2014 SCMR 801) Therefore, petitioners cannot be allowed to grab a specific portion of unpartitioned land to deprive a co-sharer or to put such co- sharer into a permanent litigation to seek protection of his rights against each subsequent vendee.
9. Worthy Apex Court, while deciding the case titled Ghulam Qasim and others Vs. Mst. Razia Begum and others reported as PLD 2021 Supreme Court 812, was pleased to take a serious note of the tactics to deprive and delay the rights of female heirs. Relevant excerpt from the judgment reads as under:
9. The people through their elected representatives enacted the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and in it set out the course for the country to take by setting out therein the Principles of Policy (Principles). These include enabling Muslim citizens to live their lives in accordance with Islam, and promoting 'Islamic moral standards'. Depriving females of their inheritance prescribed by Shari'ah violates these Principles. Denying females their inheritance also undermines their economic independence, prevents a rise in their standard of living and concentrates wealth in male descendants, which offends another three Principles. Economic deprivation of women prevents their full participation 'in all spheres of life' which is another Principle which is violated. In Employees of Pakistan Law Commission v. Ministry of Works, this Court held that provisions relating to Fundamental Rights ought to be interpreted harmoniously with the Principles of Policy and this was reiterated in Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana. In Beena v. Raja Muhammad it was held that the Principles represent 'the path and the destination that the nation has set for itself. A three-member Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Attiyya Bibi Khan v. Federation of Pakistan held that 'Article 29 of the Constitution requires each organ or authority of the State to act in accordance with those Principles and the same was echoed in Farhan Aslam v. Nuzba Shaheen.
10. The Principles especially protect the under-privileged and aim at ameliorating the condition of the vulnerable and establish the well-being of the powerless. Therefore, non-adherence to the Principles affects those who are most in need of protection, those at the mercy of predators. The Principles are 'the conscience of the Constitution and the basis of all executive and legislative action' as held by an eleven-member Bench of this Court in the case of Benazir Bhutto v.
Federation of Pakistan.
10. For the reasons aforementioned, impugned orders of the revenue hierarchy do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defence, which are otherwise, self-contained and fully in accordance with law; hence, all the impugned orders are maintained and consequently, the instant petition being bereft of merits stand dismissed with listed CMA with cost.