Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: XVII,135

Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 135---Partition proceedings---Property inherited by female legal heir--- Naqis Kamil , principle of---Right of co-owner(s), infringement of---Scope---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. Rest of the respondents were proceeded ex-parte on 08.01.2025. ORDER BABAR AMAN BABAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).---Precisely, facts of the case are that on the application of respondent No.4, the Naib Tehsildar / AC-I, Depalpur, approved partition of joint Khewat No.33 vide order dated 12.11.2020. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondent No.10 assailed that partition order by filing an appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Okara, who vide order…