| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 136 1957 SLD 136 = 1957 PLD 5 |
West Punjab
Revision Side No. 224 of 1955-56, decided on 31st October 1956, District Lyallpur.
Before H. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Muhammad Amin Khan for Petitioner. Kh. Abdur Rahim and Karam Elahi for
Respondents.
Revision Side No. 224 of 1955-56, decided on 31st October 1956, District Lyallpur.
Before H. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Muhammad Amin Khan for Petitioner. Kh. Abdur Rahim and Karam Elahi for
Respondents.
Mst. NUR JAHAN BEGAM-Petitioner
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD AHSAN ULLAH KHAN and others --------Respondents
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XIII of 1887)
Section: 117 (1)
P L D 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 5 Punjab Land Revenue Act (XIII of 1887)------ -----S. 117 (1) Question of title--When may be determined by the Revenue Officer himself. Where a person, claiming to be a shareholder in a joint estate, want the partition of an estate, knowing that the other co-sharer will not co-operate, it becomes necessary for the first mentioned co-sharer to go to a Civil Court and obtain a decree to the effect that he is entitled to seek partition. However, a Revenue Officer can in certain circumstances help the co-sharer concerned to save time if the Revenue Officer decides under sub-clause (1) of section 117, Punjab Land Revenue Act, to proceed to determine the question of title as between the parties. Ganda Singh and others v. Jhanda Singh and others 14 P R 1890 (Rev.). Raj Muhammad and others v. Mst. Shahzada Begum and others P L D 1955 Pb. (Rev.) 31 and Gul Ahmad v. Nizam Din P L D 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 13 ref. ORDER H. A. MAJID.--------The two questions which I postulated in my order dated 7th August 1956, already stand answered vide the decision of the Financial Commissioner in Ganda Singh and others v. Jhanda Singh and others (14 P R 1890 (Rev.)) which was recently acted upon by the Financial Commissioner in Raj Muhammad and others v. Mst. Shahzada Begum and others (P L D 1955 Pb. (Rev.) 31) and by the Board of Revenue in Gul Ahmad v. Nizam Din (P L. D 1950 W P (Rev.) 13). The effect of the above-mentioned decisions is that where a person claiming to be a shareholder in a joint estate, wants the parti tion of an estate, knowing that the other co-sharers will not co-operate, it becomes necessary for the first mentioned co sharer to go to a Civil Court and obtain a decree to the effect that he is entitled to seek partition. After such a decree is available to him, he gets the land actually partitioned by the Revenue Officer who would take the place of a local Commis sioner in cases of partition of urban property with the difference that the Revenue Officer would also prepare a mode of partition as opposed to the local Commissioner who would be bound by the mode assigned by…