1. ' These are three identical Revision Petitions against the order dated 29-4-1989 of the Additional Commissioner, Mardan, whereby the appeals of the petitioners against the order dated 9-3-1989 of the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer/Collector, Mardan was dismissed. The facts of the above three cases are that the petitioners mentioned in the above cases submitted three separate applications in the Court of Settlement Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mardan, for the partition of land:-
(i) measuring 8 kanals 16 marlas, bearing Khata No,112/228-232, Khasra Nos.1224, 1197, 1198, 1225 and 1196;
(ii) measuring 6 kanals 1 marla bearing Khata No,111, Khasra Nos.1192 and 1219, and
(iii) measuring 15 kanals, 11 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.1263, 4201/1264 and 4203/1265, ' all situated in the area of village Hoti, Tehsil and District Mardan. The applications being in order and not hit by MLR-115 were accepted and noticed were issued against the concerned parties. As the service of respondents through normal procedure was not possible, they were served through the "Daily Shahbaz Peshawar on 9-9-1987 for appearing before the Court on 20-9-1987.
2. ' As none of the respondents appeared before the Court on 20-9-1987 therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte and order for the partition of the land mentioned in the plaints according to Naqsha "URDU TEXT " and " URDU TEXT " was made by the Assistant Collector 1st rade/Settlement Tehsildar, Mardan on 20-7-1988 ' The above order was challenged in three separate appeals by the respondents before the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer/Collector, Mardan who vide his order dated 9-3-1989 while accepting the appeals remanded the cases to the Settlement Tehsidldar/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Mardan with the directions that all the respondents be served properly and may be given opportunity of contesting the applications by filing their written statements all the proceedings be taken according to the provisions of the Law Revenue Act, 1967.
3. ' The above order of the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer/Collector Mardan was challenged in further appeals before the Additional Commissioner Mardan, who vide his order dated 29-4-1989 dismissed the appeals. Hence the three Revision Petitions before the Board of Revenue.
4. ' Parties present. Written arguments of the counsel for the parties and cord of the cases perused.
5. From the perusal of the record of the cases it has been noticed that the partition proceedings have been completed in a very hasty manner against the provisions laid down in the Land Revenue Act, 1967. In the order-sheet dated 25-5-1988 it has been ordered that the case to come up for the preparation of mode of partition on 4-6-1988, while in next below sentence of the same order sheet it has been mentioned that the mode of partition sanctioned and sent to the patwari halqa.
6. ' From the perusal of the plaints and the notice of proclamation served on respondents through Daily "Mashriq" Peshawar, it has been noticed that the number of respondents and Khata numbers do not tally with each other.
7. ' From the perusal of the report of the process-server on the summons issued for 31-8-1987 placed on original Court file No,202/9, it reveals that Mashal khan etc. 11 in number were stated to have expired. But their legal heirs have not been impleaded as party to the cases. The trial Court was required to ask the applicants to bring their legal heirs to represent the cases through proper service of notices upon them.
8. ' In his written arguments, the counsel for petitioners has stressed on the point of limitation. While in rebuttal the counsel for respondents in his written arguments had referred to the following authorities:-
(a) PLD 1973 Quetta Page 1 Citation B.
(b) PLD 1970 Lahore Page 6 Citation A.
(c) PLD 1969 Lahore Page 1040 Citation B.
(d) PLD 1974 Lahore Page 434 Citation B.
(e) PLD 1951 Lahore Page147.
9. After going through the record of the cases and the arguments submitted by the counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that the remand order dated 9-3-1989 of the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer/Collector, Ist Grade, Mardan is a valid order based on the cogent reasons. There seems no illegality or material irregularity in the order.
10. ' Based on the above discussion, these three identical Revision Petitions of the petitioners are dismissed and the orders dated 9-3-1989 and 29-4-1989 of the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer/Collector Ist Grade, Mardan and Additional Commissioner, Mardan respectively, are maintained.
11. ' Parties to bear their own costs.