P L D (Rev (PLP)

Partition‑Plea that mode of partition was sanctioned in absence of petitioners held to be untenable where the three petitioners were present before the Naib Tehsildar and two of them were also present before the Assistant Collector, First Grade who sanctioned the partition. ORDER AKHTAR HUSSAIN, F. C. R.--‑This is a revision petition forwarded by the Commissioner, Multan Division, with his order dated 19th August 1953, recommending that the mode of partition sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, First Grade should be quashed and the case be remanded to the Collector, D. G. Khan, to hear the petitioners regarding the‑ mode of partition and decide the mode afresh. The facts of the case briefly are that Jaru Khan, respondent had applied for the partition of a joint holding comprising of Khata No. 74 of village Lala Khosera Tahsil Jampur in 1948. Ghulam Muhammad Khan, Ghulam Haider Khan and Ghulam Hussairi Khan (Petitioners) were the other party in this case. The mode of partition was sanctioned on 12th May 1949, but this was ordered to be reviewed by the Collector on 11th December 1950. The Naib Tahsildar on 1st October 1951, proposed a fresh mode of partition and at the same time he noted that as Ghulam Muhammad etc. respondents did not appear before him, they were proceeded against ex parte. Ghulam Muhammad made an application for the cancellation of the ex parte order of the Naib‑Tahsildar. This ex narte order was cancelled by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, on 22nd October 1951, and the Naib‑Tahsildar was ordered to reconsider the proposed mode of partition after hearing the respondents. Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Hussain respondents appeared before him on 20th November 1951, and filed their written statement. Ghulam Haider, third respondent appeared on 13th December 1951, before the Naib‑Tahsildar and his statement was also recorded. The Naib‑Tahsildar reported that the mode of partition previously proposed by him on 1st October 1951, should stand and should be approved. Parties were directed to appear before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, on 13th October 1952. On that date Jaru; applicant and Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Hussain, respondents, appeared before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Ghulam Haider, their brother was absent. Ex parte proceedings were taken against him and the Assistant Collector, First Grade, on 13th February 1953, approved the mode of partition as proposed by the Naib‑Tahsildar on 1st October 1951. An appeal was filed before the Collector by the three respondents. The main ground taken was that the mode of partition wag sanctioned in the absence of the petitioner. The Collector rejected the appeal by holding that Ghulam Muhammad one of the respondents was present when the Naib‑Tahsildar visited the spot on 9th August 1952, and that they were duly heard by the Tahsildar (Assistant Collector, First Grade) before sanctioning the mode of partition and that there was nothing wrong with' the mode of partition sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, First Grade. He, therefore, rejected the appeal. The petitioners consequently filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, who has forwarded the case to me for orders on the ground that partition proceedings were conducted in the absence of the petitioner without any opportunity being given to them to object to the proposed mode of partition. I have heard the counsel of the petitioners and have satisfied myself with reference to the proceedings on the file that the petitioners were present before the Revenue Officer when mode of partition was proposed. They also appeared before the Naib‑Tahsildar from time to time and the proceedings do not indicate any departure from the usual procedure governing the mode of partition. In the circumstances, I find that the proceedings have been properly conducted and that the petitioners were present when the mode of partition was sanctioned. I, therefore, decline to interfere on the revision side and reject the application for revision. A. H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition rejected.