P L D 1957 W (PLP)

H. A. MAJID.‑

The two questions which I postulated in my order dated 7th August 1956, already stand answered vide the decision of the Financial Commissioner in Ganda Singh and others v. Jhanda Singh and others (14 P R 1890 (Rev.)) which was recently acted upon by the Financial Commissioner in Raj Muhammad and others v. Mst. Shahzada Begum and others (P L D 1955 Pb. (Rev.) 31) and by the Board of Revenue in Gul Ahmad v. Nizam Din (P L. D 1950 W P (Rev.) 13). The effect of the above‑mentioned decisions is that where a person claiming to be a shareholder in a joint estate, wants the parti tion of an estate, knowing that the other co‑sharers will not co‑operate, it becomes necessary for the first mentioned co sharer to go to a Civil Court and obtain a decree to the effect that he is entitled to seek partition. After such a decree is available to him, he gets the land actually partitioned by the Revenue Officer who would take the place of a local Commis sioner in cases of partition of urban property with the difference that the Revenue Officer would also prepare a mode of partition as opposed to the local Commissioner who would be bound by the mode assigned by the Civil Court. A Revenue Officer can in certain circumstances help the co‑sharer concerned to save time if the Revenue Officer decides under sub‑clause (1) of section 117, Punjab Land Revenue Act to proceed to determine the question of title as between the parties. I can consider at the present stage whether the Assistant Collector I Grade should be required to convert himself into a Civil Court for purposes of determining the dispute of title between the present parties. I have formed the opinion I have made clear to the parties that I want to bear them on the following points :‑ (1) Can the Revenue Officer dealing with a request for partition under the Land Revenue Act direct which of the two parties should take the question of title to a Civil Court. (2) If the Revenue Officer decides to send a specified party to a Civil Court, can he fix time for which be will keep the partition proceedings pending so that the specified party might go to a Civil court. that such a course will not be necessary, because the petitioner is only required to seek a declaration from a competent Civil Court to the effect that she has the right of seeking partition She will, therefore, not be burdened with a very heavy Court. fee on the plaint which will have to be presented before the Court. Even if the other party decides to contest the claim by stating that she is not in possession or that they have been in adverse possession for more than 12 years, she will not be required to seek a decree of possession. The contest will be that she is not entitled to the declaration asked for because the other party have been in adverse possession for more than 12 years. I, therefore consider that the Revenue Officer in the present case should not be required to sit as a Civil Court. In the above circumstances, I do not find any occasion for interfering with what the subordinate Revenue Officers have done. I accordingly dismiss this petition for revision. A.H. Petition dismissed.