P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

Mazhar‑ul‑Haq for Petitioner. Anwar Rehman for Respondents. These two revision petitions relate to the mode of partition of Shamilat land of village Ram Nagar, district Guiranwala. The Assistant Collector had sanctioned a mode of partition and the petitioner Mst. Sakina Bibi went up to the Collector in appeal which was rejected. Her revision petition to the Commissioner has also been dismissed. She has now come up in second revision. The second revision petition relates to an interim order of the Assistant Collector by which the partition proceedings were restored. The proceedings had been filed in default but on a subsequent application for restoration the proceedings were started afresh. As in the substantive case an appeal to the Collector and subsequently a revision to the Commissioner against this restoration have also been dismissed. This is a second revision petition in that connection. The main point of contention between the parties is whether the partition should take place in accordance with the land revenue demand payable by a shareholder or in proportionate to the area held by him. The revenue officers below have all come to the conclusion that the partition should be effected in proportion to the area held, and it appears that the body of villagers with the exception of Hidayat Ali and his near relations have all accepted this proposal. The petitioners have not been able to produce any documents to support their contention that partition should take place in accordance with the land revenue demand payable by the co‑sharers. A copy of the latest Sharat‑Wajibul ARZ which is put the clearly indicates that the mode of partition already proposed is in accordance with it. In any case if an earlier Sharat‑Wajibul Arz gave a different indication it has been overruled by the latter agreement between the co‑sharers of the estate. The petitioner himself has admitted the correctness of this position. Another issue has been raised whether the revision petition is in order as all the co‑sharers of the estate have not been joined as parties before me. The respondents' counsel does not insist on it as he considers that the respondents should succeed on merits alone. As regards the revision petition in respect of restoration of the proceedings the petitioner has argued that it was necessary to issue a notice to all the co‑sharers of the estate before the applica tion could be restored. This was not done, and constitutes a material irregularity which vitiates the proceedings. It is settled law that the provision of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to summary enquiries held under the Land Revenue Act i.e., in mutation cases, partition proceedings etc. It was advisable to issue notice to all the co‑sharers before restoring the application for partition but the procedure adopted has not in any way affected the merits of the case of the jurisdiction of the officer dealing with it. I would in these circumstances following the principles of section 99 of the C. P. C. overrule this objection. As a result I would dismiss both the revision petitions. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.