P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD,‑This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, dated 8th June 1955, by which he declined to interfere in partition proceedings relating to the shamilat of village Wayanwali, district Gujranwala. Without going into the details of this protracted litigation, which started on the 13th June 1939. the material facts for coming to .a decision of this revision petition are as follows :- In the original partition proceedings, a question of title was raised on the strength of entries in the Shart Wajib‑ul arz of the estate which precluded partition of shamilat land stated to be reserved as cattle grazing ground. The Assistant Collector declined on the 10th June 1990, to proceed further till this question of title was determined. The Collector. on appeal, decided on the 13th July 1942, that the Assistant Collector himself should proceed to determine this question. It seems to me somewhat doubtful whether a direction of this kind would be strictly in accordance with law. Anyhow, the Assistant Collector ordered the respondents: Taj Ali, Khurshid Ali, etc., to put in a plaint, and on their default he proceeded with the partition case. After lapse of a consider able period a mode of partition was sanctioned on the 15th June 1954. The Collector and Commissioner both have declined to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Collector. Jalal, Hassan Ali, etc., who are co‑sharers in the shamilat, have now come up in revision. Two main points have been taken up before me :‑ Firstly, that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade has not strictly complied with the provisions of section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act as he has not given any finding on the question of title raised before him but has proceeded with the partition on the strength of default by Taj Ali, etc.; who failed to file a plaint as directed by the Assistant Collector. I have carefully considered this aspect of the case, and I hold that the proper procedure for the Assistant Collector in such circumstances was to have struck issues on the basis of the application for partition and the pleas by the other party and decided the question of title in accordance with‑the procedure followed by Civil Courts. This decree) would have been appealable to the District Judge. The Assistant Collector, instead of adopting this procedure, proceeded with the partition on the ground that no plaint had been filed by the party concerned. This procedure adopted by him is clearly against law. The other point is whether the provisions of section 34 of the Evacuee Property Ordinance, XV of 1949, do not apply to the case in question. The learned Commissioner has dealt with this point at considerable length, and I would agree with his views that in case the petitioners succeed in proving that there is evacuee interest in the shamilat, then the provisions of section 34 would apply and the procedure laid down in this section shall have to be complied with. I accept the revision petition for the reason that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not comply with the provisions of section 117 of the Land Revenue Act. As a result the partition proceedings are stayed till the question of title raised by the petitioners is decided by the Assistant Collector. A. H. Petition accepted.