GUL DIN KHAN vs Mst — 2026 CLC 684 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB

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

GUL DIN KHAN VS Mst. KANEEZ BIBI (deceased) through legal heirs Imtiaz Hussain Ss. 3, 117 & 136(b)(iii)---Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 (IV of 2013), Ss. 2 & 3(c)---Agricultural land or land subservient to agriculture, partition of---Scope---Immovable property, definition of---Revenue authorities, powers of---Scope---Report (submitted by Revenue Officer being duly appointed Local Commission after visiting site in presence of parties) proved that still some portion of land was being used for agriculture---Perusal of S.3 read with S.117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('the Act 1967') clearly showed that there was no bar/restriction on the Revenue Officer to partition lands under revenue administration if it was not specifically excluded by a Notification of Board of Revenue, Punjab; now, the old S.3 of the Act, 1967 had been replaced---Moreover, as per S.136(b)(iii) of the Act, 1967, partition of only that land was barred which was occupied as the site of a town or village only if the partition may cause inconvenience to the co-sharers / other persons, or diminish utility of the property to be divided, otherwise, partition of any such land was allowed---Further, S.2 of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 ('the Act 2012') also allowed the Revenue Authorities to partition agricultural land or land subservient to agriculture---The definition of "immovable property" under S.3(c) of the Act, 2012 also excluded agricultural land or land subservient to agriculture---Revenue Authorities had not been barred from partitioning any land in a Khewat which was used for agriculture or used subservient to agriculture---Further, the legal heirs of respondent filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Civil Court which dismissed the suit being not maintainable holding that the respondents needed to get the land partitioned---Thus, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) rightly passed the impugned order which did not suffer from any legal defect or lacuna calling for interference---Revision petitions, being merit-less, were dismissed.

GUL DIN KHAN vs Mst — 2026 CLC 684 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC