P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑The simple facts of this revision petition are as follows :‑ Mst. Shahzada Begum etc. the petitioners made an appli cation for partition of the property in dispute. Raj Muhammad etc. the other co‑sharers of the property, raised a question of title and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed an order directing them to get this question decided by a Civil Court within a period of six months, failing which Mst. Shahzada Begum etc. would become entitled to partition of the property. A revision petition was filed against this order by Raj Muhammad etc. to the Collector who rejected it on the ground that it was time‑barred. A second revision application was made by them to the learned Commissioner, who has now forwarded it with certain recommendations contained in his order dated 31st December 1954. Briefly the Commissioner has suggested that the Revenue Officer should be directed to determine the question of title himself and not refer the parties to a Civil Court. Section 117 of the Land Revenue Act under which the order under consideration has been passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade runs as follows :‑ (1) When there is a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought, the Revenue Officer may decline to grant the application for partition until the question has been determined by a competent Court, or he may himself proceed to determine the question as though he were such a Court. It will thus be seen that it is competent to the Revenue Officer to decline to grant an application for partition until, the question of title has been determined by a competent Court of course he may himself proceed to determine this question, but he has the other option of referring the parties to a Civil Court. An acceptance of the Commissioner's recommendation for which he has relied on Chapter 18'9 of the Punjab Land Records Manual would virtually amount to an amendment of section 117 as it will take away from the Revenue Officer the discretion either to take up the matter himself or to leave the parties to have recourse to a competent Civil Court. The views propounded in the Land Records Manual do not have legal sanction behind them and consist of executive instruction to Revenue Officers for their guidance in dealing with various matters which come up before them. At most it could be said that a Revenue Officer is normally expected to deal with question of title himself as a Civil Court. There are however, many cases in which complicated legal issues are involved and it should be open to a Revenue Officer to decline to proceed with such cases himself and quite properly leave them for decision by a Civil Court. Of course a direction of the kind which the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in this case has given that the party, who raised the question of title should get the matter determined within a period of six months by a Civil Court is ultra vires of the Land Revenue Act. As already, observed his order should merely be on the following lines :‑ "I decline to grant this application for partition until the question has been determined by a competent Court". Any further directions by him are beyond his authority and he should not have given them. I would, therefore, accept this revision petition only to the extent of amending the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in the above terms. It has not been necessary to hear the petitioners as the amendment in the order of the Assistant Collector made by me is in their favour. A. H. Petition accepted.