Shahida Parveen (164 Land Revenue)

IN THE COURT OF E.D.O. (REVENUE) MULTAN.

Mst. Shahida Parveen W/o Rana Bakhtiar Ahmad, caste Rajpoot, R/o Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan. ……Petitioner VERSUS 1.

Qambar Abbas S/o Syed Abbas, caste Syed Zaidi, R/o 42-V, New Multan.

2.

Nayyar Abbas

Syed Abbas, caste Syed Zaidi

3.

Qaiser Abbas

4.

Mst. Shamsana Zaidi--daughter Multan.

sons

R/o 985-C, Mumtazabad,

……Respondents

Revision Petition under section 164 of Land Revenue Act, regarding land in Khata No. 88, against the order dated 27.5.03 passed by D.O. (Revenue) and order dated 8.4.2000 passed by A.C-I, Multan are illegal, having been passed in the illegal exercise of jurisdiction. Claim in revision petition: To set aside both the impugned orders and to remand the case to A.C-I, Multan with direction to postpone the proceedings on partition application till the decision of title of land in dispute from the civil court.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That respondents jointly owned 162K—11M of agricultural land in Khata No. 87/88, Mauza Ram Kali, Tehsil Multan. They wanted to sell the whole land. They (respondents) entered into an oral agreement to sell their share of land to the petitioner through her husband & General Attorney Rana Bakhtiar Ahmad.

2.

That under the said oral agreement, the respondents individually transfer land measuring 86K—4M through various mutations No. 5747 dated 20.1.96 in Khata No. 87, land measuring 25K—9M from Qaiser Abbas in favour of petitioner, vide mutation No. 5600 dated 22.7.96, land in Khata No. 88, measuring 16K—00M from Qaiser Abbas in favour of Rana Bakhtiar Ahmad, vide mutation No. 5793 dated 7.1.97, land in Khata No. 88 measuring 6K—11 M from Nayyar Abbas in favour of petitioner, vide mutation No. 5844 dated 12.2.97 land in Khata No. 87 measuring 25K— 9M from Nayyar Abbas, in favour of Shahida petitioner and mutation No. 5918 dated 30.4.97 land in Khata No. 87 measuring 12K—15M from Shamsana in favour of petitiner. Copies of these mutations are Annexes “A to E”.

3. That thereafter for the remaining land measuring 76K—18M respondents agreed to sell at the rate of Rs. 200,000/- per acre and received a sum of Rs. 200,000/- as advance money through two cheques No. 207427 dated 2.2.97 and No. 207431 dated 11.2.97

of

Muslim

Commercial

Bank

and

Rs. 50,000/- cash; and under this oral agreement, they also transferred possession of the remaining land to the petitioner through her husband Rana Bakhtiar Ahmad who is also General Attorney of the petitioner. The advance money paid from joint account of the petitioner and her husband. Copy of counter foil of the two cheques are Annexes “F & F/1”. 4. That the respondents later on backed out of the agreement. Therefore, Rana Bakhtiar Ahmad husband and General Attorney of the petitioner filed against the respondents suit for specific performance of agreement to sell regarding land in dispute in civil court, which is still pending adjudication. 5.

That in March, 1998, the respondents filed two applications against the petitioner before Tehsildar/A.C.-I Multan for partition of the joint holding claiming therein that they are joint owners in Khata No. 87/88 with the petitioner. Copy of the application for partition is Annex “G & G/1”.

6.

That the petitioner in her written reply to the applications submitted that the respondents agreed to sell their land to the petitioner and received Rs. 200,000/- through two cheques as advance money and under the agreement to sell handed over actual physical position of the land to the petitioner through her husband and general attorney Rana Bakhtiar Ahmad. Since the question of title of the property of which petitioner’s right is subjudice before the Civil Court, the partition proceedings are not maintainable under section 141

of Land Revenue Act and paragraph 18.8 of Land Records Manual. Copy of written reply is Annex “H”. 7.

That the learned A.C.-I failed to consider the question of title and without deciding the question of title himself or without waiting for the decision by the civil court, proceeded with the matter and sanctioned the mode of partition vide his consolidated order dated 8.4.2000. Copy of the order is Annex “J”.

8.

That against this order of the A.C.-I, petitioner filed two appeals in the court of District Officer (Revenue) Multan. Wherein the same question of title was re-agitated. Learned D.O.(R) also did not consider the question of title and without considering the same vide his order dated 27.5.03 set aside the wandas made by A.C.-I and directed A.C.-I to propose fresh wandas after hearing the parties and in accordance with possession etc. and sent it back to the appellate court on 24.6.2000. Copy of grounds of appeal is Annex “K” and copy of the impugned order dated 27.5.03 is Annex “L”.

9.

That both the impugned orders dated 8.4.20000 passed by the learned A.C.-I and order dated 27.5.003 passed by learned D.O.(R) are violative of law. According to section 141 Land Revenue Act, if there is a question as to title in a property of which partition is sought, the Revenue Officer has only two options available to him. Either he will decline the application until the question of title has been determined by the

competent court (in this case the civil court) or he may proceed to determine the question of title himself as a court. There is no third option open to him. In this case, the learned A.C.-I neither decided the question of title himself nor he declined the petition for partition till determination of question by the civil court. His decision to proceed with the case regardless of the question of title, which is subjudice, is absolutely ultra vires, void and nullity in the eyes of law. 10.

That the petitioner vehemently raised this plea of title before the learned appellate court and also submitted written arguments on this point, but learned D.O.R. did not consider this point. Hence, his order dated 27.5.03 is also void to the extent of not considering the question of title. Copy of written arguments is Annex “M”.

11.

That both the impugned orders reveal lack of application of mind to the facts of case and the law on the subject. Both the impugned orders being in disregard of clear provisions of law are unfit to be sustained.

12.

That counsel for the petitioner has referred to the appellate court authorities PLD 1956 W.P. 27, wherein it is held that question of title must be dealt with by the Revenue Officer either by constituting himself into or by referring parties to the civil court—disregard of provisions of section 117 (now sec-141)—case remanded. Another authority PLD 1950 Punjab (Rev) 586

wherein it was held that Revenue Officer not deciding the question of title according to law---material irregularity--interference by Financial Commissioner justified. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that both the impugned orders dated 8.4.2000 passed by the learned A.C.-I Multan and the order dated 27.5.03 passed by the learned D.O. (Rev) Multan be declared as without lawful authority, being violative of the provisions of section 141 Land Revenue Act, read with paragraph 18.8 of the Land Records Manual and direction be issued to A.C.-I to keep the application for partition pending till the final decision of question of title pending before the civil court. Petitioner, Dated: 2 .6.03 Shahida Parveen

Through: Zaffar Iqbal Khan, 124-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE COURT OF E.D.O. (REVENUE) MULTAN.

Mst. Shahida Parveen

Vs.

Qambar Abbas etc.

R.O.R. No. _________of 2003 APPLICATION FOR STAY Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the above captioned revision petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court.

2.

That the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute under the agreement of sale and as such she is entitled to save her possession U/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

3.

That the respondents’ application for partition is based on malafide with intention to resile from the agreement of sale for which they have received advance money through two cheques & cash of Rs. 50,000/- and under the agreement, they delivered possession of the land to the petitioner through her husband.

4.

That the respondents are bent upon taking possession of land under the garb of partition.

5.

That both the impugned orders are against law & facts of the case. the learned courts below could not proceed with partition proceeding without first determining the question of title.

6.

That there are every chances of success of this revision petition. Loss of possession have always been considered an irreparable loss. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this revision petition be accepted and learned courts bellows be directed to suspend the proceedings of partition till the determination of question of title regarding land in dispute till the final decision of civil court. Affidavit attached. Petitioner,

Dated: 2 .6.03 Shahida Parveen

Through: Zaffar Iqbal Khan, 124-District Courts, Multan.

IN THE COURT OF E.D.O. (REVENUE) MULTAN.

Mst. Shahida Parveen

Vs.

Qambar Abbas etc.

R.O.R. No. _________of 2003 APPLICATION FOR STAY

AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Shahida Parveen W/o Rana Bakhtiar Ahmad, caste Rajpoot, R/o Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of June 2003 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT