| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1944 1961 SLD 1944 = 1961 PLD 89 |
West Pakistan
Revision No. 59 of 1960-61, decided on 12th December 1960, District Lahore.
Presented By: Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue
Muhammad Aslam for petitioner. Abdul Hassan for
Respondent.
Revision No. 59 of 1960-61, decided on 12th December 1960, District Lahore.
Presented By: Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue
Muhammad Aslam for petitioner. Abdul Hassan for
Respondent.
QAMAR DIN-Petitioner
VERSUS
FAZAL DIN -Respondent FAZAL DIN-RESPONDENT
Law: Punjab Revenue Act, (XVII of 1887)
Section:
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. ORDER 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…