2025 CLC 1807 (PLP)

BABAR AMAN BABAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)

Brief facts of the case are that Bashir Ahmad son of Sardara applied for partition of joint holdings bearing Khewat No. 52 comprising land measuring 136-Kanals 05-Marlas located in Mouza Bahawal Fatiana, Tehsil and District Sahiwal. The Naib Tehsildar / AC-I, Sahiwal, carried out partition proceedings and approved Wandajaat vide order dated 17.06.2017. Being dissatisfied, the defendants assailed that partition order by filing appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2021. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants assailed the said order before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal. The revision petition was accepted vide dated 15.05.2023 and the case was remanded to Revenue Officer for decision afresh. Hence, the instant appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that one Aziz Ahmad son of Sher Muhammad applied for partition of land on 13.02.2002. The Revenue Officer prepared the Wandajaat vide ex-parte order dated 22.10.2003. That the litigation between the parties went upto the level of Board of Revenue, Punjab. That the Member (J-VII), Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 16.11.2015 remanded the case to Revenue Officer with the direction to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with the law. That the defendants did not appear before the Revenue Officer intentionally as they were in possession of excess land than their entitlement. That the Revenue Officer approved the Wandajaat on 17.06.2017 in accordance with the law. That no other co-sharer has objection on the Wandajaat except the defendants. That the ADC (R) rightly dismissed the appeal of defendants. That the Additional Commissioner accepted the revision and remanded the case to Revenue Officer for decision afresh without any valid reason and against the facts and record. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the end, he prayed for acceptance of the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the defendants argued that the Revenue Officer did not follow the procedure of partition as laid down in the Land Revenue Act, 1967. That the defendants were never summoned and heard before approving the Wandajaat. That the defendants were not made party before in the case earlier remanded by Board of Revenue, Punjab. That the Revenue Officer did not keep in view the front of the land, passage and sources of irrigation while approving the Wandajaat. That the precious land has been included in the Wanda of appellants. That the Additional Commissioner rightly remanded the case after considering the facts and record. That the impugned order is liable to be upheld. In the end, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties. Record available with the case file as well as the impugned orders passed by lower courts have also been perused at length.

5. Examination of record transpires that the partition proceedings of Khewat No. 152 started on the application of Aziz Ahmad son of Sher Muhammad in 2002. The Revenue Officer approved the Wandajaat vide order dated 22.10.2003. The litigation against the said order went upto the level of Board of Revenue, Punjab. Learned Member (J-VII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide order dated 16.11.2015 passed in R.O.R. No. 1143 of 2012 and R.O.R. No. 2052 of 2014, remanded the case to the Revenue Officer and directed the parties to appear on 30.12.2015 before the Revenue Officer. Despite the direction of learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab the defendants did not appear before the Revenue Officer. The partition of the disputed land remained under process since the year 2002. the defendants stance that they were not in knowledge of the partition proceedings is not understandable. Moreover the defendants preferred appeal against the partition dated 17.06.2017 after a delay of for which no sufficient justification or reason has been given by the defendants. Most importantly, the defendants were specifically asked to pin-point their rights which have been affected by the impugned partition proceedings. The defendants could not cite any loss that they may have accrued subsequent to, or in consequence of, the impugned partition proceedings. It is held that mere claiming that the defendants did not participate in the partition proceedings is not a valid reason to remand the case to the Revenue Officer for decision afresh. In order to remand a case to lower courts infringement of any valid legal rights must be cited, which the defendants could not do. Thus, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal rightly dismissed the appeal and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal remanded the case to Revenue Officer without any cogent reason.

6. Apropos above, the appeal having legal force and merit is hereby accepted. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal is hereby set aside and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Pakpattan along with partition order dated 17.06.2017 are upheld. Case file be consigned to record room after its due compilation and completion. MQ/6/Rev Appeal allowed. [1] 2022 SCMR 64 SC.