Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARDAR MUHAMMAD GHAZANFARULLAH KHAN VS Respondent: MST. MEHRUN NISA BEGUM
P L D 1964 W
P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 62
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Sardar MUHAMMAD GHAZANFARULLAH KHAN‑---Petitioner
versus
Mst. MEHRUN NISA BEGUM‑---Respondent
Revision No. 1806 of 1962‑63, decided on 24th September 1963, District Rahimyar Khan.
(a) Partition‑---Mode of, that either party may prepare lots in accordance with shares of various share‑holders leaving it to other party to make choice‑Cannot be disturbed in revision.
(b) Partition‑----Possession of recent origin not to be respected.
ORDER
These 10 Revision Petitions Nos. 1806 to 1815 of 1962‑63 relate to certain property which formerly constituted Isa‑Khel Waqaf‑alul‑aulad. After the promulgation of Martial Lam Regulation 64 the was of was abolished and the beneficia ries under the waqaf became owners of the property. Later on, the respondents applied for partition of their share in the joint holding which is spread over four villages and is quite considerable in area. The Assistant Collector prepared a mode of partition, the important feature of which was that it respect ed the existing possession of parties. The Collector interfered in appeal. He held that the petitioner Sardar Muhammad Ghazanfarullah Khan was in possession of the property as manager of the waqaf and the possession of other co‑sharers only began after the order passed by the Land Commissioner in 1960. He, therefore, held that possession which is so recent in origin should not be respected. An appeal was preferred against this order but the learned Additional Commissioner refused to iaterfere. He rightly held that this was not a case in which possession could be given on consideration. On the contrary it should be ignored as the 143anager (Mutwalli) was in posses sion of the property in his capacity as such and not as a co -sharer. He also prepared a mode of partition which briefly was that either party could prepare lots in accordance with the shares of the various share‑holders and should have it to the other party to make a choice. In my opinion this was an eminently reasonable method of solving the dispute.
In the revision petitions before me the same point has been taken up again namely that Sardar Muhammad Ghazanfarullah Khan was in possession of the property as a share‑holder; he should therefore be compensated for the improvements which he had carried out and for that reason should be allowed to retain possession of the property already with him. As observed by the Collector and upheld by the learned Additional Commis sioner possession of such recent origin as that of the parties in this case is not to be respected as there would be no good) grounds for doing so. In any case the petitioner was not in possession in his capacity as a share‑holder before 1960 or rather 1961, the date from which the revenue records show the respective possession of the parties but as a manager or waqif of a property. He cannot therefore get any benefit of this possession.
As a result all the revision petitions are dismissed.
K. M. A.
Petitions dismissed.