Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3130 = 1975 SLD 3130 = 1975 PLD 228
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 366 of 1974, decided on 12th April 1974.
Presented By: K. M. A. Samdani, J
Yusuf Ali Khan for Petitioners. . Ch. Mohammad Anwar Bhfnder for
Respondent No. 1.

MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN Arm 4 OTHERS-Petitioner

VERSUS

AHMAD ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)

Section: 13

West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) S. 13 read with Urdu Instructions issued by Board of Revenue in December 1965, para. 14(5)-Consolidation-Joint khatas-Partition Co-sharer in joint khata wishing partition against will of other partners-Can have Khata partitioned if such co-sharer has his own exclusive khata Share so separated from joint khata - Can be consolidated with exclusive khatu, if no hitch-Partition of such nature-Can also be resorted to in interests of minors and widows Objections of other co-sharers based on selfish motives - To be ignored -Person neither minor, nor owning exclusive khata in village Partition could not be directed .under para. 14(5) in course of consolidation. [Ahmad Ali Khan v. Muhammad Raza Khan P L D 1974 (Rev.) 86 overruled.] Ahmad Ali v. Muhammad Raza Khan P L D 1974 (Rev) 86 overruled. Date of hearing: 11th April 1974.                                                                                                              JUDGMENT The petitioners are joint owners with respondent No. 1 in khatas Nos. 8 ?5 and 1398 in village Mananwala, District Sheikhupura. While respon dent No. 1 owns no land in the village except in those two khatas. petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are owners of khata No. 838 and peti tioners Nos. l to 5 are joint owners with their mother in khata No. 837. In the course of the consolidation proceedings in the village respondent No. 1 sought to have his share in khatas Nos. 835 and 1398 (which amounts to one-third of the total) separated by partition. The Assistant Consolidation Officer refused to partition the khatas in question for the sake of respondent No. 1. Thereupon, respondent No. 1 appealed to the Collector. But the appeal was dismissed on the 3rd of October 1969. Then he preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) but failed again as the petition was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register