Partition of land on mutual agreement | Partition of agriculture land case laws.

پٹشنرز نے اپیل فائیل کی کے ریسپانڈنٹ جو کے ایک سو بارہ ھیں نے درخواست دی سیکسن 135 لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ کے تحت زمین کی تقسیم کے لیے ۔ معاملہ بورڈ اف ریونیو کے پاس زیر سمعات تھا کہ باھمی رضا مندی سے ڈگری ھو گیا۔

پٹشنرز جو کہ دو ھیں نے چیلنج کیا بورڈ اف ریونیو کے باھمی رضامندی والے ارڈر کو ھائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا۔ جس رٹ کو ھائی کورٹ نے جھوٹی قرار دیتے ھوئے خارج کر دیا اور پچاس ھزار روپے جرمانہ جمع کروانے کا حکم دیا۔

سپریم کورٹ کے نالج میں جب یہ بات ائی کے پچاس ہزار جرمانہ جمع نہیں کروایا ابھی تک اور قبضہ بھی نہیں دیا تو سپریم کورٹ نے دس لاکھ جرمانہ جمع کروانے کا حکم دیااور جرمانہ تمام مدعا علیہان میں برابر تقسیم کا حکم دیا۔ اور بورڈ اف ریو نیو کو حکم دیا کے قانون کے مطابق فیصلے پر عملدرامد کروایا جائے۔

Case laws on partition

THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Present:

Justice Qazi Faez Isa, C.J.

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan

Justice Athar Minallah

Civil Petition No.946 of 2022

(Against the order dated 21.12.2021 of

the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi

Bench passed in Writ Petition No.1325

of 2016)

Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah

…Petitioners

Versus

Hassan Bokhari and others

…Respondents

For the petitioners: Mr. Amjad Raza Bhatti, ASC with Syed Zeeshan Haider,

son of the petitioner No.1

For the respondents: Not represented.

Date of hearing: 13.11.2023

ORDER

Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. Learned counsel states that the respondents, who are

one hundred and twelve in number, had submitted an application under

section 135 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 seeking partitioning of

certain lands. The application was objected to by the petitioners, who are

two in number. The matter eventually came up before the Member, Board

of Revenue, who disposed of the same by consent. However, the

petitioners assailed the consent order by filing a writ petition before the

High Court. The learned Judge of the High Court reproduced the earlier

consent and dismissed the writ petition and held that, ‘the petition at the

face of it is not only frivolous but vexatious and is dismissed in limine with

costs of Rs.50,000/-, which shall be deposited with the Deputy Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court within thirty days, failing which the same shall be

recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue in accordance

with law.’ We inquired whether the costs which were imposed had been

paid or recovered, and are informed that the costs were neither paid nor

recovered. The impugned order of the High Court is dated 21 December

2021 and thus, such an anomaly is surprising. The office shall have

pointed this out and noted it.

We enquired from the learned counsel why partition is being

objected to and he stated that the petitioners are in possession of land

and their rights will be adversely effected. This is not a valid ground to

oppose partition. Moreover, the petitioners had challenged a consent

order, which was upheld by the High Court. The respondents had

CP-946 of 2022.doc

submitted a simple application for partition, which they were entitled

under the law, but which for no discernable reason has been resisted by

the petitioners. This has resulted in unnecessary litigation and wastage

of time. The petitioners, it seems, want to procrastinate matters and by

acting most unreasonably have managed to stretch out a simple matter

for almost 14 years. The petitioners must be influential and do not want

the less fortunate overwhelming majority to obtain their rights pursuant

to the partition.

The fact that revenue authorities have still not attended to the

respondents’ application and have disregarded the order of the Member,

Board of Revenue, indicates the influence they wield, including over the

revenue officers of the area, who have also paid no heed to the order of

the learned Judge of the High Court. They also did not bother to recover

the amount of fifty thousand rupees that they had been directed to do in

the impugned judgment. Such disobedience and disdain by the revenue

officers who are paid out of the public exchequer undermines the rule of

law.

No illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order to justify

the grant of leave, which is accordingly declined with costs in the sum of

one million rupees; such costs are in addition to the costs imposed by the

learned Judge of the High Court. The costs shall be deposited with the

concerned revenue officer and shall be equally distributed/paid to the

respondents, and if not deposited within 30 days, shall be recovered

as areas of land revenue from the petitioners. The concerned revenue

officers are also directed to implement the order of the Member, Board of

Revenue in accordance with the law. Copy of this order be sent to the

Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Government of Punjab and to the

senior most revenue officer of the concerned district, who shall proceed

as directed.

The petition stands dismissed in the foregoing terms.

Chief Justice

Judge

Judg

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.