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 sons R/o 985-C, Mumtazabad,

4. Mst. Shamsana Zaidi--daughter Multan.

……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