The facts relevant for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioners and respondents Nos. l to 12 have common ancestor and they owned land measuring 4070 Kanals, 17 Marlas situated in Mauza Mochiwala, Tehsil Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad (previously Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala), The respondents Nos.1 to 6 moved an application for partition of the joint Khata on 20th May, 1975. Respondent No.13 approved the mode of partition on 18-2-1978.
Thereafter, the Field Staff formulated the instrument of partition Annexure ' E' . It seems that the respondents waited for the implementation of the mode of partition and finding no progress in the matter proceeded to file Writ Petition 1497 of 1982. The same was disposed of vide order dated 18- 10-1989 whereby respondent No. 13 was directed to finalise the report of the Girdawar dated 18-8- 1980 after hearing the parties. The said respondent proceeded to pass an order on 23-12-1989, which was assailed through Writ Petition No.511 of 1990. It was noticed by this Court that in spite of the direction the parties have not been heard. The petition was accordingly allowed, the order dated 23-12-1989 was declared without lawful authority and respondent No. 13 was directed to finalise the partition proceedings by the 15th of March, 1990. The petitioners appeared before respondent No. 13 and submitted objections on 25-2-1990. Respondent No.13 rejected the objections and approved the proposed instrument of partition vide order dated 30-4-1991 which was assailed through an appeal before respondent No.14, who dismissed the same vide order dated 2-2-1992. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision petition before respondent No. 15, who accepted the same vide order, dated 25-7-1993; which order was assailed by respondents Nos. 1 to 6 through vision petition before respondent No. 16, who accepted the revision vide order dated 19- 9-1994. Hence the present Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition argued that the order rejecting the objections of the petitioners is no order in the eye of law as reasons have not been assigned. It is added that even the objections have not been discussed. It is argued that the petitioners were not associated while preparing the statement Annexure ' C' .
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. l to 6 argued that anxiety of the petitioners is to get the mode of partition set aside. In this behalf the learned counsel has referred to the prayer of the petitioners in the revision petition before respondent No. 15 appended as Annexure 'K` with this writ petition. It is argued that the partition, is dealt with under Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The application is presented under section 135 while the mode is prepared under section 142, which also provides one appeal within thirty days. It is added that no appeal, whatsoever, is competent against the instrument of partition, which is in the nature of execution of the mode of partition. In this behalf reliance is placed on the judgment reported as Lala Ram v.
Financial Commissioner, Haryana (AIR 1992 P&H 62). It is added that the whole scheme of the provisions as to the partition is that the same should be decided at the earliest but the Petitioners are interested to prolong the same for an indefinite period as is clear from the fact that the partition proceedings were initiated by an application dated 20-5-1975. The mutation according to the instrument of partition was sanctioned on 16-5-1991. The proceedings have taken almost sixteen years and still there is no end. It is added that the objections raised were of general nature and grounds were riot pin pointed. It is added that the conduct of the petitioners has been rightly commented upon by respondents Nos. 14 and 16.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as provisions of law and precedent cases. The foremost question which falls for determination is, the nature of the order of implementation of the mode of partition. It is clear from the whole scheme of provisions relating to partition that the Legislature intended that these proceedings should be concluded within minimum time span and that is why the right of only one appeal was given. The admitted position between the parties is that the order prescribing the mode of partition dated 18-2-1978 has become final as having been not challenged by any of the parties. There is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that P' the instrument of partition is in the nature of execution proceedings.
It was held in the case of Lala Ram as under:-- "It is, no doubt, true that the instrument of partition has necessarily to be prepared but the fact remains that the said instrument only records what has already been determined. It is a formal document that has to be prepared only to recognize the fact of the partition. The very fact that it has to be necessarily drawn does not mean that it is appealable. A perusal of various sections that has been referred to above would manifest that the instrument of partition is a step in execution of partition which has already taken place, Once all the necessary steps in effecting partition have been taken then a party to proceedings cannot raise objections in drawing the instrument of partition. It is just like a decree which is to follow the judgment. It is only those orders which affect the rights of the parties that are appealable and the document, viz, the instrument of partition which is only a step towards execution of the order of partition shall not be appealable. "
The provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 are in pari materia to the pre-visions of the Act of 1967. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued with reference to the case of Lal Ram (supra) that in order to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners should show that manifest injustice has been caused to them as a result of the impugned orders. It is added that when nothing at all has been either stated or shown to conclude that injustice muchless manifest injustice has been done to the petitioners then no relief can be granted to them.
5. I have gone through the objections and find that the same are of general nature and grievance has not been pin pointed even till today. The scope of objections considered in the scheme of the provisions of law is very limited. The petitioners in order to maintain the objection petition have to clearly show that the instrument of partition offends the mode of partition. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to point out any such factor. On the other hand, it is clear from the grounds of revision of respondent No. 15 that the petitioners are trying to get the mode of partition set aside.
It is not out of place to mention here that throughout the arguments it was maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mode of partition had become final and the parties were bound by it. If this is so then the petitioners have no grievance to urge. There is nothing to maintain this Constitutional petition.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the Constitutional petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.