Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BOOTA VS Respondent: MEHRAJ BEGUM ETC
P L D 1965 W
P L D 1965 W. P. (Rev.) 24
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
BOOTA AND OTHERS‑Petitioners
Versus
MEHRAJ BEGUM ETC. ‑Respondents
Revision No. 1752 of 1963‑64, decided on 31st March 1965.
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (Martial Law Regulation (C. M. L. A's) No, 64-------
----paras. 23, 24‑Share of co- sharer less than subsistence holding cannot be partitioned off from rest of land‑[Petitioner permitted to take action under para. 24 if so advised]‑[Land in village, lying north of River Ravi, where length of a Karam was 60 inches and area of 107 kanals being thus equal to 11.021 acres was less than 12 acres.
Abul Hassan for Petitioners.
Rafiq Ahmad for Respondents.
ORDER
This is a second revision filed against the order dated 10‑6‑64 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who while exercising powers of a Commissioner, accepted the revision petition preferred by respondent No. 1.
The facts of the case are that Mst. Mehraj Begum moved for the partitioning of her share from the joint khata. Her request was rejected on the ground that such a partition would be against the provision of para. 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64. She went in appeal to the Collector but the appeal was rejected. She then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner who passed the order mentioned above. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. This village lies to the north of River Ravi and the length of a Karam is 60 inches and the area of 107 kanal will therefore be equal to 11.021 acres. This would be less than a subsistence holding. Partitioning of the joint khata would mean that the petitioner's share will be less than a subsistence holding. It is, therefore, not possible to even adopt the procedure by which her share can be separated and the shares of others should be allowed to remain joint.
In these circumstances, I accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that the order passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector‑ shall stand.
The petitioner, however, can if so like, take such action as is permissible under para. 24 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64.
A. H. Petition accepted.