2026 PLP 684 (CLC)

BABAR AMAN BABAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).

1. Brief facts of the cases are that Mst. Kaneez Bibi applied for partition of joint holdings bearing Khewat No. 141 comprising land measuring 111-Kanals 17-Marlas located in Chak No. 84/5L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal. The Revenue Officer, Sahiwal carried out partition proceedings and approved Wandajaat vide order dated 14.06.2019. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners assailed that partition order by filing separate appeals before Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal. The appeals were accepted vide orders dated 24.12.2020 by setting aside the partition order and directed the parties to approach the competent forum for their redressal. Feeling aggrieved by that order, Riaz Hussain etc. legal heirs of Mst. Kaneez Bibi preferred appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal. The appeal was accepted vide dated 28.10.2022. Hence, these revision petitions. As both the revision petitions have been filed against the same order, property involved in the cases is same and facts are common, therefore, these will be disposed of through this single order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both revision petitions argued that Mst. Kaneez Bibi applied for partition of land. Her claim that she is owner of 05-K 07-M land in the Khewat is not correct. That Mst. Kaneez Bibi and her legal heirs were owners of about 80-K land, which they sold in the shape of a residential colony from time to time. That the said colony is not an approved colony. That the land reserved for streets and public utilities is still intact in their names. That land measuring 05-K 07-M is intact in their names, whereas, 07-K land is required for streets and public utilities. That most of the area of the Khewat has become residential, which she has admitted in her partition application. That the Revenue Officer was not competent to partition the Khewat, the civil court has jurisdiction to partition that Khewat. He relied upon 2000 CLC 1626. That the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal rightly directed the parties to approach appropriate forum. That the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal accepted the appeal without considering the facts and record. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the end, he prayed for acceptance of the instant revision petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, legal heirs of Mst. Kaneez Bibi argued that land measuring 05-K 07-M is intact in the name of Mst. Kaneez Bibi. That land measuring 32-K 07-M is an agricultural land, which is still being cultivated. That they left the village and settled in Tehsil Burewala, due to which the petitioners illegally occupied the land and denied to give share in produce. That Muhammad Yaseen etc. and Javed Iqbal etc. occupied 02-M and 04-M, respectively, and made constructions for residential purpose. That against these illegal construction, civil suit was filed, and for remaining area application for partition of land was given to the Revenue Officer. That the Revenue Officer after deducting the land required for streets, gave 03-K 08-M to the respondents instead of 05-K 07-M. That the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal accepted the time barred appeal of the petitioners. That the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division rightly passed the impugned order. That the same is liable to be upheld. In the end, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions.

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

5. Examination of record transpires that during the proceedings learned counsel for the petitioners requested that a local commission may be appointed for submission of factual passion of the site, in presence of the parties. The request was accepted, and Revenue Officer, Yousafwala was appointed as local commission. The Revenue Officer, Yousafwala visited the site in presence of parties on 03.07.2025 and submitted his report in this court which also proves that still some portion of land was being used for agriculture. The perusal of Section 3 read with Section 117 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 clearly shows that there is no bar / restriction on the Revenue Officer to partition lands under revenue administration if it is not specifically excluded by a Notification of Board of Revenue, Punjab. Now, the old section 3 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 has been replaced. Moreover, as per Section 136(b)(iii) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 partition of only that land is barred which is occupied as the site of a town or village only if the partition may cause inconvenience or diminish utility of the property to be divided; otherwise, partition of any such land is allowed. Section 136(b)(iii) is reproduced as below:- "any land which is occupied as the site of a town or village, may be refused if, in the opinion of the Revenue Officer, the partition of such property is likely to cause inconvenience to the co-sharers or other persons directly or indirectly interested therein, or to diminish the utility thereof to those persons." Further, Section 2 of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 also allows the Revenue Authorities to partition agricultural land or land subservient to agriculture. The same is reproduced hereunder: "

2. Limitation on scope: Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any law providing for the partition of agricultural land or land subservient to agriculture." The definition of "immovable property" under Section 3(c) of the said Act also excludes agricultural land or land subservient to agriculture. The same is reproduced as under:‑ (c) "immovable property" means an immovable property, other than agricultural land or land subservient to agriculture, jointly owned by two or more persons; The upshot of above discussion makes it amply clear that the Revenue Authorities have not been barred from partitioning any land in a Khewat which is used for agriculture or used subservient to agriculture. Further, the legal heirs of Mst. Kaneez Bibi filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Civil Court, Sahiwal. Learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal dismissed the suit being not maintainable, relying upon 2016 YLR 1300, and held that the respondents need to get the land partitioned. The Additional Commissioner/ (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal thus rightly passed the impugned order. The counsel for the petitioners failed to adduce any convincing evidence or law, rules, policy to substantiate the claim that the rights of the petitioners have been infringed. In this scenario, it can safely be held that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal defect or lacuna which calls for interference by this court. The legal question regarding partition of impugned land is thus settled through this judgment.

6. Apropos above, the revision petitions being devoid of force and merit are hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal along with partition order dated 14.06.2019 is upheld. Case file be consigned to record room after its due compilation and completion. MQ/10/Rev Petitions dismissed.