P L D 1963 W (PLP)
BAHADUR SHER KHAN‑Petitioner Versus KHANIMULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1963 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BAHADUR SHER KHAN‑Petitioner Versus KHANIMULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1963 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1963 W (PLP) (BAHADUR SHER KHAN‑Petitioner Versus KHANIMULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 121‑Consolida tion operations started‑Partition proceedings if pending to be stayed‑Partition proceedings coming to an end, though instru ment of partition not drawn up‑Question of stay does not arise.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Afzal for Appellant. This revision petition has been preferred regarding partition of certain lands situated in village Boga, Tahsil Swabi, district Mardan. A mode of partition, which was not contested, was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and a partition, in accordance therewith, was officially carried out. Three appeals were preferred against the order of partition but the Collector dismissed them. A revision filed by Bahadur Sher, petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar. A second revision has now been filed by him. Only two points have been argued before me : firstly, that certain fields to writs Nos. 805 and 806 are in fact chahi but have been treated as barani when sanctioning the partition. A reference to the copy of the village jamabandi shows that both the fields are recorded as barani and there has been thus no mistake on this account. The second argument urged is that consolidation opera tions have started in this village and the partition which in fact has already been concluded should not be given effect to now. This is not in keeping with the law which lays down that only if partition proceedings are pending, further proceedings shall not be taken in case consolidation operations are started in an estate. However in case a partition has already come to an end the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance does not come into operation. The fact that the instrument of partition has not been drawn up. does not mean that the partition is still incomplete. A reference to section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act clarifies this position. This section runs as follows: ‑ "When a partition is completed, the Revenue Officer shall cause an instrument of partition to be prepared and the date on which the partition is to take effect to be recorded therein." In this' particular case the partition has been completed and the fact that possession has not been taken over by the parties in accordance with the partition or that the instrument of the partition has not been prepared does not stand in the way. The revision petition accordingly stands dismissed. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.