KHUDA-E-DAD vs BHAWAL KHAN Ss — 2021 MLD 1141 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

KHUDA-E-DAD VS BHAWAL KHAN Ss.135 & 172(1)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss.42---Suit for declaration, partition and possession---Partition of agricultural land---Revenue courts, jurisdiction of---Scope---Dispute between the parties pertained to partition of joint agricultural land entered in the record of rights in the name of parties---Plaintiff/respondent filed an application to Tehsildar (assistant Collector) for partition but due to non-attendance of petitioners/defendants, he (Tehsildar) directed to approach Civil Court---Validity---Suit-property (Khata) was still in the name of contesting parties---Partition of joint agricultural land was exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue authority under S.135 of Balochistan Land Revenue act, 1967 (' the act 1967')---Section 172(1) of the act, 1967 stipulated that in cases where the Board of Revenue or any officer took cognizance of the matter, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to dispose of such cases---Though under S.9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Court had jurisdiction to try all civil cases except either expressly or impliedly barred but in partition proceedings, the jurisdiction of Civil Court was ousted under Ss.135 & 172(1) of the act, 1967---Suit-property required to be partitioned as jointly owned by the parties---Revenue authority described the procedure while adopting the mode of partition under S.135 of the act, 1967---When any party interested in partition of his share in the joint landed property had to approach the Revenue authority---Revenue authority was fully empowered to effect partition for which the party applied---Respondent/plaintiff filed application which was not decided by the Tehsildar (assistant Collector), instead he directed the respondent to approach Civil Court which was not according to law---Reason (i.e. non-appearance of the petitioners) mentioned in the order by the assistant Collector was mockery of law---If the petitioners wilfully failed to appear in partition proceeding, the Revenue Officer could not wait for him/them, but should have proceeded with the partition proceedings under the law---Partition of joint agricultural property was exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Officer as he was bound to act as per the act, 1967---High Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent for want of jurisdiction, and set aside judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below---High Court directed the Revenue authority to decide the matter expeditiously within two months---Revision petition was disposed of accordingly.

KHUDA-E-DAD vs BHAWAL KHAN Ss — 2021 MLD 1141 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 MLD