P L D 1963 W (PLP)

(b) Partition‑

Possession at time of partition proceedings only may be taken into consideration. (c) Partition

Partition on basis of compromise between parties‑Not to be set aside. This order will dispose of the three connected Revision Petitions Nos. 378, 379 and 380 of 1961‑62, which have been preferred against a single order of the learned Additional Com missioner, Dera Ismail Khan, relating to partitioned proceed ings of three distinct holdings of the parties in which they are joint co‑sharers, situated in village Sher Ali, District D. I. Khan. Three separate modes of partition were sanctioned by the Assis tant Collector on applications made by the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 but these were subsequently amended in appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner interfered in revision because the parties themselves had come to an agreement regard ing the modes of partition of the three holdings. It is against this decision of the Additional Commissioner that the three revisions under consideration have been made. Three points have been taken up before me on behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, that the petitions are not legally competent in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 23 of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations and secondly paragraph 23 of the Consolidation of Holidings Ordinance 1960, lays down that partition proceedings should be held in abeyance if conso lidation proceedings have started. The third contention relates to a question of fact namely that the officers below have not respected the possession of the petitioners and this omission has resulted in their getting inferior land instead of the culturable land which they had broken up and were in possession of. As regards the first of the two legal objections I have invited the attention of the learned counsel of the petitioners to paragraph 214 of the book `Land Reforms in West Pakistan', Volume I, published by the Secretary of the Land Commission. It is laid down in this paragraph that in case a joint owner's share exceeds an economic holding or is equal to it an embargo on partition would cause him hardship. In cases of this kind the Commis sion have decided that a co‑sharer with a holding larger than an economic holding or equal to it should not be debarred from getting the joint holding partitioned. As regards the second objection which falls under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance there is no evidence to support the contention that consolidation operations have started in this estate. This allega tion is denied by the respondents. Thus this point too like the first does not hold good. The third plea relates to respect for possession of the parties. On going through the record I find that the three joint holdings have been dealt with separately and when deciding the modes of partition the Revenue Officers did in fact respect possession, in accordance with the entries existing in the jamabandi of 1955‑

56. It is quite possible that subsequent to the preparation of jamabandi the petitioners may have taken possession of certain fields and cultivated them but as the partition proceedings started in 1957, it would prima facie be unjust and unreasonable to respect possession which the petitioners have come by during the course of or immediately after the partition proceedings had started. An objection has also been taken on behalf of respondents, namely, that the parties had effected a compromise before the learned Additional Commissioner and the partition proceedings are being carried out in accordance with this compromise. A revision petition should not be held to be competent against a compromise which the parties had willingly entered into and the petition should be thrown out on that ground alone. This is a valid contention and I would accept it. As a result of the above discussion I would hold that the three revision petitions have no force and reject them. K. M. A. Revision rejected.