2006 PLP 1155 (CLC)

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.

Mst. Majeedan Bibi and 2 others (respondents Nos. 1 to 3) had filed an application, to get partitioned the share of their lands, situated in Chak No.6/Gajiani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Chishtian. After proceeding with that petition, the aforesaid Assistant Collector had ordered the partition on 24-11-1995. Aggrieved from that order, Abdul Majeed, the present petitioner, filed an appeal before the District Collector, Bahawalnagar, which was dismissed on 19-11-1996. Dissatisfied with that order, he filed a revision before the learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, which also met with the same fate on 13-5-2000. Still he was not contented with that order and filed a second revision before the learned Member Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed on 13-6-2002. The matter did not stop there. He filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar to get declaration that the partition proceedings conducted by Tehsildar and consequent transactions entered into were illegal and unlawful. The suit was contested. Issues were framed and parties had adduced their evidence to prove their versions. After evaluating the evidence of the parties, learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 24-2-2005. An appeal was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, which was also dismissed on 17-6-2005. Hence, this revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner while proceeding with the petition for partition and thereafter before the revenue hierarchy. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that issue No.1, which was material issue in the suit, was not decided by the learned Courts below. Arguing the case and addressing the grievance of the petitioner, it has been stated by the learned counsel that value of land was not kept in view, while making the partition by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Statement of Mst. Majeedan was recorded by the aforesaid Revenue Officer but no opportunity of cross-examination was granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the partition proceedings, and the orders passed consequently be declared illegal and unlawful and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

3. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel and from the perusal of the record, it has transpired that the petitioner had failed not only before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade but before the higher forum of that revenue hierarchy also. He had filed appeal before the District Collector, revisions before the learned Commissioner and learned Member, Board of Revenue, but all these authorities had held that the petitioner had no case to be accepted. Therefore, after failing from the aforesaid revenue strata, the petitioner was further granted full opportunity to prove his case before the learned Civil Judge as well as before the learned Additional District Judge, also but had failed to prove his case. Therefore, the objection that the petitioner was not granted proper opportunity of hearing cannot be accepted in the above noted circumstances, ground and perspective. It cannot be presumed that all these authorities and Courts have not adverted to the facts of the case of the petitioner and had not granted proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. From the arguments, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner who is brother of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, is in fact prolonging the case of partition on one or the other pretext, so as to deprive his sisters, respondents Nos.1 to 3, who had filed a petition to get their shares separated from him, through the Revenue Authorities, which was the competent forum. Findings of exclusive forum with jurisdiction cannot be upset in the Civil Court, as there is no illegality or jurisdictional defect pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Value of land, if it was not kept in view that was the matter before the revenue forums, who had to take care of it, and not the Civil Court unless a grave miscarriage of justice was pointed out, which would have shaken the very foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction of revenue officials. Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 has granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Revenue Officers in the matters which are cognizable by them. The question as to the allotment of land on the partition of an estate or holding is provided in Clause (XIX) of subsection (2) of section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and this section has conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the Revenue Officers unless and until there is unjust order pointed out by the petitioner, otherwise the jurisdiction exercised by the respondents, cannot be challenged and interfered with by the Civil Court, as the provision of section 172 of the aforesaid Act has barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in such matters.

5. As regards the opportunity of cross-examination having not been granted to the petitioner, the objection cannot be considered at this stage, especially the partition proceedings being proceedings before Revenue Officer and not before a Court. What prejudice was caused due to this defect, has also not been pointed out by, the learned counsel. Therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below being concurrent on the facts, cannot be interfered with. So, the civil revision is dismissed in limine. F.B./A-60/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.