2015 PLP 226 (YLR)

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).

These revision petitions have been filed against order dated 3-5-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, whereby revision petition of Muhammad Afzal etc. respondents Nos.2 and 3 was accepted and amendments were made in the wandas of the parties. As facts and law points involved in these cases are interconnected, therefore, these shall be disposed of through this single order.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Khushi Muhammad) argued that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in connivance with the process server managed to get ex parte order dated 6-10-2009 passed by the Tehsildar. However, the petitioners came to know about that order during pendency of appeal in the court of learned District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, therefore, the petitioner joined the said proceedings and brought factual position to the knowledge of court. The learned District Officer (Revenue) after visiting the spot passed a legal lawful order dated 2-11-2011, keeping in view means of irrigation, entitlement of parties, path etc. compactness and classification of land. But the learned Additional Commissioner did not keep in view the ground reality and factual position of the case, while passing the impugned orders through which illegal and unjustified amendments were made in the wandas of the parties. The Tehsildar did not associate the petitioners during the partition proceedings. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners (Manzoor Ahmad etc.) almost reiterated the contention of Khushi Muhammad. However, he added that respondents Nos.2 and 3 moved an application for partition of the land of joint khata with mala fide intention. They intentionally obtained the ex-parte order from the Tehsildar to get undue benefit at the cost of respondents. On the force of above arguments, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents of R.O.R. Nos.1201/2012 and 1202/2012 contended that the respondents submitted application for partition of land of joint khata. The Tehsildar, Vehari approved wandajat of the parties after observation of legal and codal formalities and consultation of the revenue record. However, the present petitioners filed a time barred appeal before the learned Additional District Collector, which was accepted on 2-11-2011 without any justification and condonation of delay. Learned Additional District Collector amended wandajat of the parties without mentioning khasra numbers. Learned Additional Commissioner rectified the wrong and made amendments according to the ground reality. No injustice has been inflicted upon the petitioner and no deficiency occurred in the entitlement of the parties. On the force of above arguments, it was prayed that the revision petitions may be dismissed. 5(sic) I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, gone through record of the case including the impugned orders and written arguments submitted by the petitioners. Brief of the matter is that Muhammad Afzal, the present respondent No.2 submitted an application to the Tehsildar for partition of land of joint khata, which was accepted on 6-10-2009 and wandas of the parties were framed accordingly. Aggrieved by that order, the present respondents filed an appeal before learned Additional District Collector, which was accepted vide order dated 2-11-2011. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-- Being dissatisfied with the order, Muhammad Afzal (respondent No.02) of R.O.R. Nos.1201/2012 and 1202/2012 filed a revision petition before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, which was accepted vide order dated 3-5-2012. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-- "I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of lower court. I have also examined the record produced by the Patwari Halqa. It transpired that the Tehsildar/AC-I, Vehari approved the Wandajaat and lower court amended the Wandajaat without keeping in view the possession and compactness which is against the principles of partition of joint holdings." Wanda No. Name of Co-sharers/ owners Khasra No. Total area Kanals Marlas I Muhammad Afzal etc. 64/17(8k), 24(8k); 64/4(8), 6/(8k), 7/(8k), 14(8k), 15(8k), 13-MIN Sharqi (4k) 60 00 II Muhammad Amir etc. 64/2(8k), 9(8k), 12(7K-7M) 3-min Charbi (14M), 18(8k), 19/1(6k), 23(8k); 65/3(8k), 23 8(8k), 13-min Harbi (4k) 66 01 III Khushi Muhammad 44/21 (6K-18), 22(5K-5M) 23(8k), 24(8k) 26(6K-17M) 64/3-min Sharqi (7K-6M), 4(8k), 7(8k) 8(8k) 13(7K-7M) 14(7K-7M) 78 00 All means of irrigation and approached road/path already existing will remain in common use for all the co-sharers/owners. From the above it appeared that this is not a case of partition of joint khata rather it is case of determination of specific piece of land which was purchased by the petitioner as both the parties are purchasers of the impugned land. It is quite clear that the petitioners have purchased the land with specific khasra numbers. They also produced copies of relevant khasra girdawari, which shows that in consequence of each of the transaction, the possession was handed over to the petitioners, so need less to mention that the respondents have sold a particular piece of land to the petitioners and obviously would have received consideration of this particular piece of land according to its market value. Now the respondents have no lawful right to grab the impugned land which they have sold to the petitioners in the garb of partition. Hence, the revision petition is accepted. The order dated 3-5-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan is set aside and order dated 2-11-2011, passed by learned District Collector, is upheld. HBT/15/Rev. Petition accepted.