1992 PLP 1190 (CLC)

__S. 164‑‑‑partition of joint Khata without authority‑‑‑Patwarit Kanungo and Revenue officer who had prepared, checked and supervised Jamabandi creating separate Khata without any authority were directed to be proceeded against for misconduct, by relevant Authorities with compliance report to be furnished to Board of Revenue, within specified time. Muhammad Farooq Oureshi for Petitioners. Ch. Abdur Rashid Gujjar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th October, 1991. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Aslam respondent made an application to District Collector stating therein that according to Record of Rights, 1983‑84 he was a co‑sharer with other co‑sharers in Khewat No.

196. On 16‑2‑1988 he purchased some land from the said Khewat. Later on some other persons also purchased land vide mutations Nos.173, 176 and

177. Being a co‑sharer in this Khata the respondent preferred pre‑emption suits against the other purchasers in the cavil Courts which are pending adjudication. While preparing Record of Rights for the year 1987‑88 the Patwari Halqa incorrectly included his share in separate Khata No.199 and by that way his share in the original Khata was eliminated. Similarly the Patwari carved out a separate Khata number 198 for other co‑sharers which resulted in partition of Khata without sanction of any competent authority. The petitioners requested that the land in Khewat No.196 be allowed to continue in the same Khata as per entries of Records of Rights 1983‑

84. The District Collector vide order dated 3‑12‑1989 allowed the correction of the record. That order was unsuccessfully, assailed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (R). Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit property was owned by Taj Muhammad. His heirs Muhammad Hanif etc. sold specific Khasra number measuring 12 Kanals vide mutation No.164. Next they sold specific Khasra number to Said Shah and once again to Nizam Shah. All the land was thus alienated by them and the respective vendee& were in possession of the land. The respondent filed a pre‑emption suit, during the pendency of which separate Khatas were established in the subsequent Jamabandi. The respondent thereupon applied for correction of the record, which was accepted by the Collector vide order dated 3‑12‑1989 and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. Both impugned orders were passed illegally as all the mutations of sale were regarding specific Khasras from Khata No.196 and this Khata was therefore, privately partitioned. Due to sale of specific Khasras the petitioners could not have applied for correction of the record under cover of being co‑sharers. The provisions of MLR‑115 were not applicable in this case and the petitioners were not impleaded as a party before the Collector. Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. In support of their contention the learned counsel relied upon 1987 SCMR 207.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained in rebuttal that the, pre‑emption suit preferred by the respondent is pending in the Civil Court. The definition of person as given in MLR‑115 para. 24 has subsequently been amended and presently meant not only a separate person but also persons. The joint Khata could not have been partitioned in Jamabandi without the order of a competent authority. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The sole point in this case is whether a joint Khata can be partitioned by the Patwari without orders of a competent authority. The total area under Khata No.196 was 104K‑2M, which was impartible under MLR‑

115. The purchase of specific Khasras by the petitioners does not effect the legal position of the case in so far as the partition of the Khata is concerned. The Khata was impartible and the petitioners, even if vendees of specific Khasras number, could have been reflected as co‑sharers in Hissadari possession of specific Khasras number but another Khata could not have been created by the Patwari without the orders of competent authority. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, dated 3‑12‑1989 and Additional Commissioner, dated 25‑2‑1990 have therefore, been made on valid consideration and in accordance with law. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to Punjab Pre‑emption Act and is not applicable to the correction of the record. The revision petition is, therefore, devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed.

5. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that the Patwari, Kanungo and the Revenue Officer who prepared, checked and supervised the Jamabandi creating separate Khata of the respondent without any authority, shall be proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, for misconduct by the relevant authorities and compliance report shall be furnished to the Board of Revenue within six months by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division. AA./461/R Petition dismissed.