| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4569 = 1965 SLD 4569 = 1965 PLD 69 |
West Pakistan
Revision No. 1040 of 1963-64, decided on 17th February 1965.
Presented By: I. U. Khan
Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad for Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 in person. Munir Shah for
Respondent No. 2.
Revision No. 1040 of 1963-64, decided on 17th February 1965.
Presented By: I. U. Khan
Mirza Nasir Ahmad and Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad for Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 in person. Munir Shah for
Respondent No. 2.
KHAN SHAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners
VERSUS
Mst. SAT BHARI AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1883)
Section: 111
(a) Partition------ ----Mode of-Excess land taken away from party and land of other party given to former on principle of consolidation of holdings-Mode not interfered with in Second Revision. (b) Partition------- ----Mode of-Private partition with regard to other land not given effect to-in Revenue Records-Rightly ignored in regard to land which was now subject of partition. (c) Practice-Partition of land under Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1883)----- -----S. 111-Plea against mode of partition not raised in appeal before Collector not allowed to be raised in Second Revision before Board ORDER This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 16th of January 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner Sargodha, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that the respondents applied for the partition of Khata No. 3 but no action was taken because the parties came to a compromise. Subsequently, the respondents applied for the partition of Khata No. 2 and the Tehsildar, after the necessary formalities, sanctioned a mode of partition. The petitioners went in appeal to the Collector but it was dismissed. They then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, but it was also dismissed. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that some land in the possession of the petitioners had been taken away from them. I see no force in this contention because the petitioners' possession was in excess of their entitlement and, during partition, excess land had to betaken away from them. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the…