P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Revision No. 59 of 1960‑61, decided on 12th December 1960, District Lahore. Punyab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 122‑Possession of allotted share already given‑Application for possession unneces sary‑Question of limitation does not arise. Muhammad Aslam for petitioner. Abdul Hassan for Respondent. The facts of this revision petition are as follows :‑ Partition of certain lands belonging to the parties' had been pending with the Assistant Collector, I Grade, Lahore and it was finally sanctioned on 15‑12‑1955, with the previous that effect to the partition was to be given in Rabi 1956. The instrument of partition somehow was prepared three years later on 22‑10‑1958. However, an application for possession in accordance with the terms of the sanctioned partition was made by the respondents three months earlier on 21‑7‑1958 and possession was actually delivered on 17‑4‑1959. It was argued before the Assistant Collector that the first application made on 21‑7‑1958 was filed in default and a second application was made three years after Rabi 1956, the harvest from which the partition had to take effect. It was argued that this second application was therefore time‑barred and the old position regarding possession should be restored. The Assistant Collector, however, held that change of possession had already been effected on 17‑4‑1959; further that the application for possession was not time‑barred on the ground that the instrument of partition was drawn up on 2‑10‑1958 and an application for possession could be made within three years of its execution. On a revision petition made to the Additional Commissioner (no appeal was lodged against the Assistant Collector's order to the Collector) he declined to interfere but for a reason other than that given by the Assistant Collector. According to him the second application for delivery f possession was merely a continuation of the first application which had beers filed in default and for that reason the period of three years beginning from Rabi 1956, could not be considered to have expired. The record of the case is not very clear on this point which has been urged again in the second revision before me, namely that the second application was a different one and the original proceedings were not restored. The record, however, shows that what happened as a matter of fact was that though the application was filed in default, possession had already been delivered to the parties. The default was thus not in a sense a non‑prosecution of the application which has been satisfied, Din The second application appears more or less to have been unnecessary; presumably it was made because entries in the revenue records had not been made in accordance with the change of possession. I would, in these circumstances, be inclined to agree with views expressed by the Additional Commissioner and decline to interfere in this revision petition, which stands rejected. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.