2026 PLP 471 (CLC)

BABAR AMAN BABAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).

Precisely, facts of the case are that on the application of respondent No.4, the Naib Tehsildar / AC-I, Depalpur, approved partition of joint Khewat No.33 vide order dated 12.11.2020. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondent No.10 assailed that partition order by filing an appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Okara, who vide order dated 24.10.2023 dismissed it. Being aggrieved, the petitioners as well as the respondent No.10 filed appeals separately against the order of ADC (R), Okara, which were also dismissed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, vide impugned order dated 06.08.2024. Hence, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned orders are illegal and unlawful which is evident from the fact that the revenue field staff after site inspection prepared Wandajaat keeping in view the location, possession and classification of land but the Circle Revenue Officer while passing the impugned order modified the same without any cogent reason. That illegally and unlawfully, area comprising Khasra No.5/2 was given to the respondent No.4, which was in possession of the petitioners. That, whereas, the area comprising Khasra No.5/8 was given to the petitioners which was in possession of the respondent No.10. That the possession of the other parties was also not considered by the Circle Revenue Officer. That while partitioning the land, the possession of the parties must be kept in mind. That the Circle Revenue Officer passed the impugned order in a hasty manner. That the petitioners are in possession 02-K-02-M less than their entitlement i.e. 21-K-14-M. That at the time of partition principle of compact blocks was totally ignored. That the ADC (R), Okara, and learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, while passing the impugned orders committed material irregularity by upholding the impugned partition. Finally, acceptance of the instant revision petition has been prayed for by setting aside the impugned orders along with partition order.

3. On 08.01.2025, the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte and on the application of respondent No.4, the ex-parte proceedings were cancelled on 08.07.2025. Since then, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 failed to argue upon merits of the case. On the last date of hearing i.e. 25.08.2025, a very last opportunity for arguments was given to the respondent No.4 and it was mentioned in the interim order that otherwise the case will be decided on merit and after that no justification will be accepted. Today, despite final last opportunity, neither the respondent nor learned counsel attended the court. Therefore, the contention of the respondent has been gleaned from the impugned orders.

4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners were heard at length. Record available with the case file as well as the impugned orders were also perused carefully.

5. Examination of record transpires that the Revenue Officer, Depalpur, vide order dated 12.11.2020 carried out the partition proceedings of joint Khewat No.33 comprising land measuring 06-Kanal AND 11-Marla located in Mauza Jundwal. Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. Subsequently, Instrument for Partition had also been issued on 14.11.2023. It is evident from the record that the process of partition was completed in five years but the petitioners did not appear before the Revenue Officer. It is observed that only respondent No.10 filed appeal against the aforesaid order of Revenue Officer before Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Okara, who vide order dated 24.10.2023 dismissed the same upholding the partition order. The order of ADC (R) was assailed by the petitioners as well as the respondent No.10 by filing appeals separately before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, who vide order dated 06.08.2024 dismissed the same too. It is pertinent to mention here that the dispute is mainly between brothers, the petitioners, and the sister, the respondent No.4. The contention of brothers, the petitioners, regarding possession of land holds no water as land was inherited from their father. It is held that in an inherited land, no party can claim a specific piece of land on the basis of mere possession and land will be partitioned among all legal heirs on the principle of 'Naqis Kamil'; i.e. all legal heirs will be given land of equal value. And in such cases, in order to provide land of equal value, it is not necessary to provide perfectly compact blocks as that may not be feasible. In such cases parties, may be given different portions taking care of the approaches and irrigation sources also. The petitioners' counsel was asked to prove infringement of any of his rights but he could not adduce any infringement of their rights in the aftermath of the impugned partition proceedings before lower courts as well as before this court. The instant revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of the lower courts passed after hearing contention of the parties and consultation of record. Therefore, the stance of petitioners has been found to be baseless as they could not adduce any convincing ground which calls for interference by this court. It seems that they only want to prolong the proceedings by not giving their sister her due.

6. In view of the above discussion, the instant revision having no legal force and merit is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, is hereby upheld. The Registrar, Board of Revenue, is directed to send a copy of this order each to learned Commissioner, Sahiwal Division, and District Collector, Sahiwal, for information. Case file be consigned to record room after its due compilation and completion. MQ/15/Rev Revision dismissed.