Partition proceedings

2026 CLC 471 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 135Partition proceedingsProperty inherited by female legal heir"Naqis Kamil", principle ofRight of co-owner(s), infringement ofScope

Record transpired that the Revenue Officer carried out the partition proceedings of joint Khewat and subsequently instrument of partition was issued

Said process of partition was completed in five years but the petitioners did not appear before the Revenue Officer

Against the partition order, only one co-owner (one of the respondents) filed appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/ ADC (R), which was dismissed upholding the partition order

Said order of ADC (R) was assailed by the petitioners as well as the said respondent by filing appeals separately before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who dismissed the same too

Pertinently, the dispute was mainly between brothers, the petitioners, and the sister (respondent)

In an inherited land, no party can claim a specific piece of land on the basis of mere possession and land will be partitioned among legal heirs on the principle of "Naqis Kamil" i.e. all legal heirs will be given land of equal value

And in such cases, in order to provide land of equal value, it is not necessary to provide perfectly compact blocks as that may not be feasible

In such cases parties may be given different portions taking care of the approaches and irrigation sources also

Petitioners could not adduce any infringement of their rights in the aftermath of the impugned partition proceedings

Member -Board of Revenue maintained both the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)

Revision, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 CLC 1775 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 135Partition proceedingsWandajat, constitution ofSpecific objections to partition proceedings not pin-pointedAppreciation of objectionsScope

Petitioners (co-sharers) assailed order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) whereby the concurrent findings of two Courts below were set-aside

Validity

The respondent was asked to specifically pin-point what his specific objection was on the partition proceedings but he failed

Merely claiming that objections were not appreciated by the Revenue Officer during partition proceedings was not a valid ground to remand the case unless it was proven to the Appellate or the Revisional Authorities that the objections were worthy of consideration and were tenable

Member Board of Revenue set aside impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue); consequently, orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and Tehsildar were maintained

Revision petition was accepted, in circumstances.

2025 CLC 1614 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Chap. XI, S. 135Letter No. PMU(BOR)/D-O/66/2014 dated 27.02.2014 issued by the Project Management Unit of the Board of Revenue, PunjabPartition proceedingsMerger/pooling (consolidation) of Khatas, seeking ofPermissibilityPetitioners were owners in multiple (as many as four ) KhatasIn order to partition their land, they requested for consolidation/merger/ pooling (??????) of their Khatas

But the request of petitioners for consolidation/merger was not entertained and the mode of partition was finalized without consolidation of Khatas

The matter of consolidation/merger/ pooling (??????) of the Khatas of the petitioners had gone all the way up to level of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab

The Courts below, while relying on Letter No. 2014/66/D-0/BOR/PMU dated 27.02.2014 issued by Project Management Unit of Board of Revenue, Punjab, held that consolidation of Khatas cannot be permitted since every Khata is a separate entity and must be partitioned separately

Question as to whether or not the consolidation of khatas is permitted under the Land Revenue Act, 1967?

Held: In the present case, the petitioner has raised a compelling practical concern; which confirms that all co-sharers of the impugned khatas have voluntarily expressed their explicit and uncontested consent to merge and pool their holdings

No party has raised any legal or factual objection

Imposing an unqualified prohibition in these circumstances is not only inequitable but also counterproductive to the objectives of just partition

A blanket ban creates procedural deadlocks, forcing repetitive and technical proceedings, and defeats the fundamental aim of revenue administration, which is to reflect accurate and agreed-upon ownership and possession

The principle "ubi jus ibi remedium-where there is a right, there must be a remedy" clearly supports the petitioner's case

Ownership rights of co-sharers in the land are undisputed, yet the denial of merger or pooling, despite mutual agreement, effectively deprives them of a practicable remedy

When procedural obstacles obstruct the enforcement of rightful possession or fair partition, the law must intervene to restore balance

The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, while detailed in its regulation of partition under Chap. XI, remains silent on the subject of merger or pooling of khatas

Said legislative silence must not be misconstrued as a prohibition

The Latin maxim "Quod lex non prohibet, licitum est" (which the law does not prohibit, it permits) clearly applies

Thus, while clearly the Land Revenue Act, 1967, is silent in regard to consolidation of khatas/khewats, yet a complete ban on the same should not be allowed to continue

Subject to certain safeguards, pooling or merger of khatas shall be deemed a permissible administrative and judicial act in appropriate cases

Member Judicial, Board of Revenue, Punjab, set-aside the impugned order, maintaining orders/judgments of Courts below, passed by the predecessor of this court; and ordered the Khatas-in-question to be merged / consolidated; and the case was remanded to the competent Revenue Officer for fresh proceedings

Review petition was accepted accordingly.

2025 CLC 1614 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Chap. XI, S. 135Partition proceedingsMerger/pooling (consolidation) of Khatas, matter ofProcedural safeguards

In order to ensure transparency and prevent misuse of the power to merge or pool khatas/khewats, certain procedural safeguards are mandatory:- firstly, all khatas proposed for pooling must be situated within the same revenue estate; secondly, the respective shares must be either identical or reconcilable without prejudice to any party; thirdly, the District Collector or an officer senior to him must pass a reasoned judicial order after due verification of the record; lastly, no subordinate Revenue Officer or a Patwari or Qanungo shall be authorized to initiate or approve any such merger independently

Subject to said safeguards, pooling or merger of khatas shall be deemed a permissible administrative and judicial act in appropriate cases.

2025 CLC 1614 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 135Partition proceedingsMerger /pooling (consolidation) of Khatas, matter ofDivergent judicial opinions / precedentsInterpretation of precedent(s)Whether, contextual or rigidPetitioners were owners in multiple (as many as four) Khatas

In order to partition their land, they requested for consolidation/merger/ pooling (??????) of their Khatas; but the request of petitioners for consolidation/merger was not entertained and the mode of partition was finalized without consolidation of Khatas

The matter of consolidation/merger/ pooling (??????) of the Khatas of the petitioners had gone all the way up to level of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab

The Courts below relied heavily on the judgment in case titled Ibrar v. Raheem Dad (2015 CLC 546), where the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, opined that "each joint khata is a separate revenue unit and any co-sharer therein may apply for independent partition under S. 135 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967"

Said interpretation was used to invalidate the earlier reasoning given in case titled Yasin v. Jan Muhammad (2005 CLC 1944), where the Member Judicial, Board of Revenue, Punjab, had permitted the pooling of five joint khatas in the interest of achieving a just and equitable partition"

Held: It is evident that divergent judicial opinions have existed at the highest level of the revenue judiciary concerning the permissibility of khata merger

Said judicial dissonance suggests that matter remains interpretatively open and calls for contextual rather than rigid interpretation of precedents

In the present case, the petitioner has raised a compelling practical concern; which confirms that all co-sharers of the impugned khatas have voluntarily expressed their explicit and uncontested consent to merge and pool their holdings

No party has raised any legal or factual objection

Imposing an unqualified prohibition in these circumstances is not only inequitable but also counterproductive to the objectives of just partition

Revenue jurisprudence must evolve to accommodate both legal and administrative realism

The function of judicial orders within revenue administration is not to enforce rigid literalism, but to harmonize legal principles with fairness, efficiency and public convenience

Where the khatas lie in the same estate, ownership is traceable, shares are reconcilable, and mutual consent exists, refusing pooling becomes not a matter of law, but a denial of equitable justice

Accordingly, while the decision reported in Ibrar v. Raheem Dad (2015 CLC 546) remains a valid precedent, its application must be understood as context-specific; it should not be interpreted as laying down a universal and permanent embargo against merger or pooling

Legal principles must adapt to the facts at hand and judicial discipline demands flexibility when required to prevent manifest hardship

A complete ban on the same should not be allowed to continue but ban has been imposed on consolidation of holdings by a judicial order

Thus, subject to certain safeguards, pooling or merger of khatas shall be deemed a permissible administrative and judicial act in appropriate cases

Member Judicial, Board of Revenue, Punjab, set-aside the impugned order, maintaining orders/judgments of Courts below, passed by the predecessor of this court; and ordered the Khatas-in-question to be merged / consolidated; and the case was remanded to the competent Revenue Officer for fresh proceedings

Review petition was accepted accordingly.

2023 CLC 1882 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.137Partition proceedingsNotices to parties, non-issuance ofEffect

Petitioners sought partition of land in question but their application was dismissed by Tehsildar/Assistant Commissioner mainly on the ground that all co-owners/co-sharers were not impleaded in the application

Order of Tehsildar/Assistant Commissioner was maintained by Board of Revenue

Validity

Revenue officer on receiving application for partition was to issue notice of the application which was to be served to all recorded co-sharers who were not joined as party in the application

Along with such notice, if Revenue Officer deemed it appropriate, he could issue a proclamation order

Even if petitioners / applicants did not include any co-sharer / co-owner, it was the statutory duty of Revenue Officer to issue notice to all the persons who were recorded as co-sharers in the property under partition and to those who had not been made as party

High Court set aside order passed by the forums below and remanded the matter to Tehsildar/Assistant Commissioner to proceed with partition application as per law

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2021 CLC 1230 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.13 & 137Partition proceedingsNecessary partiesColumn of cultivation / ownershipPrinciple

Every joint owner, at the time of partition proceedings is a necessary party, irrespective of being placed in the column of ownership or cultivation and his rights are to be protected and safeguarded accordingly.

2020 CLC 1453 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 150, 20, 4(23) & 7Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Rules, 1968, R. 7Partition proceedingsOfficer who may be empowered to conduct partition proceedingsPowers to make Rules as to procedureRevenue OfficersClasses of Revenue OfficersScopeChapter XI of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, 1967, (the Act) relates to partition proceedings

Section 150 of the Act determines the Revenue Officer by whom proceedings may be taken, which shall be a Revenue Officer not below an Assistant Collector of the First Grade

Term 'Revenue Officer' has been defined in subsection (23) of S.4 of the Act, which means a Revenue Officer having an authority under the Act to discharge the functions of a Revenue Officer

Section 7 of the Act provides various classes of Revenue Officers

Bare reading of said provisions clearly suggests that the powers to conduct the partition proceedings under Chapt. XI of the Act, have been conferred upon the Revenue Officer and thus, the same can only be exercised by him and not by any other subordinate revenue official of the department

Subsection (3) of S.20 of the Act, provides that the Revenue Officer may refer any case to another Revenue Officer subordinate to him for investigation and report but not to any other subordinate revenue official of the department i.e. Kanungo or Patwari

Rule 7 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Rules, 1968, although empowers the Revenue Officer to issue Commission in the proceedings pending before him but when R.7 is read in juxtaposition with the provisions of subsection (3) of S.20 of the Act, it follows that the Revenue Officer is competent and empowered to appoint a local commissioner but the Commissioner must not be below the rank of a "Revenue Officer".

2017 YLRN 212 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 164 & 135Revisional powers of Board of RevenueScopePartition proceedings

Petitioners contended that though respondents were owners of 25% of joint property but Revenue Officer unfairly gave respondents 93% of valuable front facing towards metalled road in ex-parte proceedings on application for partition of respondents decades back

Petitioners further agitated that revenue hierarchy moved in mechanical way by successively maintaining the basic order of Revenue Officer and no Authority set aside ex-parte order against the petitioners

Respondents contended that as there was no one there to oppose before the Revenue Officer so he was right to pass the said order

Validity

Even after initiating ex parte proceedings, the court being custodian of rights of litigants was required to dispense with justice while keeping in mind their entitlement, but Revenue Officer omitted to act fairly and justly

Other higher forums also acted arbitrarily while tackling the issue in mechanical manner

Tribunal/authority delegated with the powers to decide the personal rights of the parties or the rights attached to their properties were required to decide the same judiciously on its merit under the mandate of law

Record revealed that merits of the case were not dealt with by any of the authorities, rather the petitioners were mainly non-suited on the ground that the partition proceedings had already been implemented in the record of rights through attestation of mutation, but none of them paid attention to observe as to how the respondents being owners of lesser part of the common holding were given almost entire frontal part thereof and why the petitioners being major partners were forced to get their wanda in the hindmost part of the holding, who were bound to consider the category, value, location, and potential of the property while partitioning it, which was the most important factor to be followed while conducting said proceedings

Section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 gave unfettered powers to Board of Revenue, Commissioner and Collector to call for the record of any case pending before or even disposed of by any subordinate revenue officer and in such a case, if record thereof had been called for, Board of Revenue as well as Commissioner could pass such order as they deemed fit

Revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Board of Revenue was not subject to restrictions rather the same was very vast and main object was to curtail miscarriage of justice and the apex revenue hierarchy could interfere with the orders of subordinate authorities even if implemented or acted upon by any of parties

High Court observed that Member Board of Revenue, in the present case, without commenting upon the merits of the case or without considering legality and propriety of the orders assailed before it erred in law while upholding the same in mechanical manner, which practice neither could be protected nor perpetuated

Orders passed by revenue hierarchy lacked lawful authority which was set aside and High Court directed that application for partition would be deemed to be pending before the Revenue Officer concerned, who would re-decide the same fairly and justly after considering the principles of partition

Constitutional petition was accepted.