Case Details

Citation(s)
1957 SLG 162 1957 SLD 162 = 1957 PLD 25
West Punjab
Revision Side No. 293 of 1955-56, decided on 6th October 1956, District Rawalpindi.
Before H. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
----Lepara means land for habitation.   Ahmed Saeed Kirmani for
Respondent.

QAIM-Petitioner

VERSUS

MANGOO-Respondent

Law:

Section:

P L D 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 25   (a) Partition--   ---Mode of partition sanctioned No appeal filed -Parties, by passed.   (b) Land Maira land cannot become Lepara during term settlement---     JUDGMENT   H. A. MAJID.-----The present revision proceeding has emanated from the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, dated 8th June 1955, sanctioning a partition proceeding which had been carried out between the two parties. The present respondent appealed to the Collector and his appeal was accepted to the extent that the partition proceeding was set aside and the lower Officers were required to take action de novo. The present petitioner went in second appeal to the Commissioner, who, however, dismissed his appeal.   The order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, was passed on the basis of an application of the present respondent for the partition of a joint holding which he had instituted on 4th January 1954. The Assistant Collector found out that the present respondent had previously put in a petition for the same partition and that a mode of partition had been sanctioned in the previous case, and further that the actual process of the partition at the spot has almost been com pleted in accordance with the mode of partition. The present respondent had absented himself from the Assistant Collector's Court with the result that the partition papers had been consigned to the Record Room. The second petition, dated 4th January 1954 did not indicate the previous history of litigation between the parties.   The reason why the present respondent followed this practice was that he learnt sometimes after the mode of partition had been sanctioned that he would be a loser at the stage of the actual partition. He cannot be allowed to seek an advantage which the law does not permit him. He had not appealed against the mode of partition during the allotted time. He must, therefore, consider himself bound to that extent.   The question, however, does arise whether there is any thing inherently wrong in the sanctioned mode of partition. The Collector in his current judgment has referred to an inspection which had been carried…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register