Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)

Section: 141,4(1),111,158,48

(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)------   -----Ss. 141, 4(1), 111 & 158-Expression "land" in S. 141-Meaning restricted to land used for agricultural purposes only Land although assessed to land revenue but not under cultivation for number of years and on which permanent structures have been raised-Loses all characteristics of agricultural land-Disputes as to partition of such property may be resolved through civil Courts and not Revenue Officer-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9.   Ahmad Yar Khan v. S. K. Bhose A I R 1925 Lah. 583 not approved.   Vir Man and another v. Sham Singh etc. A I R 1944 Lah. 455 ; Rameshawar Nath v. Jageshar Nath and others A I R 1953 Punj. 250 and Shah Muhammad v. Asst. Pyari A I R 1936 Lah. 202 ref.   (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)-----   ----S. 48-Houses and shops built on agricultural land-Land does not ipso facto become immune from liability to pay land revenue.  JUDGMENT   MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a regular first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, 1st Class. Gujranwala, on the 12th of July 1956 by which he rejected the plaint of the appellant under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-appellant in the civil Court at Gujranwala forpossession by partition of 1/2 share of the land measuring two kanals five marlas bearing khata No. 707, khatauni No. 1275, khasra No. 7043/4916/2474. situated in the estate of Gujranwala. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the joint owners of the land in suit in equal shares, that the land was lying vacant since 1955 in their joint possession, but that defendant No. I illegally let it out to defendant No. 2 by a registered deed dated 22nd of December 1954 who has constructed a factory on the premises in the absence of the appellant from Gujranwala. The plaintiff did not want to keep the land joint any longer and filed the suit for possession of his share by partition. The defendants filed separate written statements and contested…