2025 PLP 1614 (CLC)

SAQIB MANAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VII)

The instant review petition has been filed under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 against the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by learned predecessor of this court whereby revision petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case have already been narrated in the impugned order, therefore, there is no need to reiterate the same.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. The instant review petition had been admitted for regular hearing on 26.09.2023. After due process the respondents were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte on 16.12.2024 after publication of proclamation in daily newspaper Yalghar on 04.12.2024. Upon the request of the learned counsel for petitioners the original ROR No. 1622/2022 had been summoned and annexed with the instant review petition. The case was fixed for ex-parte arguments on 24.03.2025. The learned counsel for petitioners stated that the petitioners are owners in Khatas Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 in Mauza Mailowal, Tehsil Bhera. In order to partition their land, they requested for consolidation of their khatas. But their request for Consolidation was not entertained and the mode of partition as well as naqsha was finalized without consolidation of khatas. The matter has gone all the way up to level of learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab who decided the matter against the petitioner vide order dated 01.06.2023. The petitioner has been agitating the defective partition scheme on the ground that his previously possessed tube well and residences have been snatched from him. All the co sharers had at one point of time agreed to Consolidation of the khatas. But despite all this, he has been adversely affected by the partition order. The learned counsel for petitioner went on to state that the parties have now agreed with their mutual consent and understanding that the orders passed by the lower courts be set aside and permission be granted for consolidation of khatas so that the Revenue Officer can frame the wandajat of the parties in accordance with their wishes.

5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents they have been proceeded against ex-parte after due process and publication of the proclamation in the National daily Yalghar on 04 12.2024.

6. I have minutely examined the record of ROR No. 1622/2022 and the order dated 01.06.2023. I have also examined the orders passed by the lower courts. Examination of record has indicated that this case has fundamentally been revolving around one legal question that is; whether or not the consolidation of khatas is permitted under the Land Revenue Act, 1967? The lower courts below have held that consolidation of khatas cannot be permitted since every khata is a separate entity and must be partitioned separately. They have placed reliance on letter No. 2014/66/D-0/BOR/PMU dated 27.02.2014 issued by Project Management Unit of Board of Revenue, Punjab. I have deeply examined and analyzed the legal question of whether the merger or pooling of khatas is permissible within the Framework of Punjab Revenue Laws. The impugned order, as well as the decisions of the courts below, relied heavily on the judgment in Ibrar v. Raheem Dad (ROR No. 1173/2013), reported as 2015 CLC 546, where the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab opined that "each joint khata is a separate revenue unit and any co-sharer therein may apply for independent partition under Section 135 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967." This interpretation was used to invalidate the earlier reasoning in Yasin v. Jan Muhammad (ROR No. 2562/1999), reported as 2005 CLC 1944, where the learned Member (Judicial-III) had permitted the pooling of five joint khatas in the interest of achieving a just and equitable partition. However, I have carefully reviewed not only the letter No. PMU(BOR)/D-O/66/2014 dated 27.02.2014 issued by the Project Management Unit of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, and letter No. 2248-2021/0801-LR-III dated 11.02.2022 of Deputy Secretary (Assessment), Board of Revenue, Punjab but also the complete judicial file and case law on which it is based. It is evident that divergent judicial opinions have existed at the highest level of the revenue judiciary concerning the permissibility of khata merger. This judicial dissonance suggests that matter remains interpretatively open and calls for contextual rather than rigid interpretation of precedents. In the present case, the petitioner has raised a compelling practical concern. This confirms that all co-sharers of the impugned khatas have voluntarily expressed their explicit and uncontested consent to merge and pool their holdings. No party has raised any legal or factual objection. Imposing an unqualified prohibition in these circumstances is not only inequitable but also counterproductive to the objectives of just partition. A blanket ban creates procedural deadlocks, forces into repetitive and technical proceedings, and defeats the fundamental aim of revenue administration, which is to reflect accurate and agreed-upon ownership and possession. The principle ubi jus ibi re,edoi,- where there is a right, there must be a remedy - clearly supports the petitioner's case. Ownership rights of co-sharers in the land are undisputed, yet the denial of merger or pooling, despite mutual agreement, effectively deprives them of a practicable remedy. When procedural obstacles obstruct the enforcement of rightful possession or fair partition, the law must intervene to restore balance. The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, while detailed in its regulation of partition under Chapter XI, remains silent on the subject of merger or pooling of khatas. This legislative silence must not be misconstrued as a prohibition. The Latin maxim Quod lex non prohibet, permittit - that which the law does not prohibit, it permits - clearly applies. Revenue jurisprudence must evolve to accommodate both legal and' administrative realism. The function of judicial orders within revenue administration is not to enforce rigid literalism, but to harmonize legal principles with fairness, efficiency, and public convenience. Where the khatas lie in the same estate, ownership is traceable, shares are reconcilable, and mutual consent exists, refusing pooling becomes not a matter of law, but a denial of equitable justice. Accordingly, while the decision reported in 2015 CLC 546 remains a valid precedent, its application must be understood as context-specific. It should not be interpreted as laying down a universal and permanent embargo against merger or pooling. Legal principles must adapt to the facts at hand, and judicial discipline demands flexibility when required to prevent manifest hardship. In the present case, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the co-sharers of the khatas have agreed to Consolidation of khatas. In light of what has been stated above it is held at a complete ban on Consolidation of khatas/khewats should not be allowed to continue. Clearly the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is silent in this regard but ban has been imposed on consolidation of holdings by a judicial order. In order to ensure transparency and prevent misuse of the power to merge or pool khatas/khewats, the following procedural safeguards must be mandatory. Firstly, all khatas proposed for pooling must be situated within the same revenue estate. Secondly, the respective shares must be either identical or reconcilable without prejudice to any party. Thirdly, the District Collector or an officer senior to him must pass a reasoned judicial order after due verification of the record. Lastly, no subordinate Revenue Officer or a Patwari or Qanungo-shall be authorized to initiate or approve any such merger independently. Subject to these safeguards, pooling or merger of khatas shall be deemed a permissible administrative and judicial act in appropriate cases. In view of the above, this review petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the learned predecessor of this court is hereby set aside. The impugned khatas are ordered to be merged . The case is remanded to the competent Revenue Officer for fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law and the observations made herein. The parties are directed to appear before the said Revenue Officer concerned. File be consigned to record room after completion. MQ/4/Rev Review allowed.