IN COURT OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE TEHSIL

RAIWAND DISTRICT, LAHORE

APPEAL. No._____________ of 2020

HAIDER ALI SAFDAR son of Hamid Ali Khan resident of House No.
78, Block No. F, Model Town, Lahore.
Appellant…
VERSUS
1. AMNA AHMED daughter of Khalid Ali Khan resident of House No.
149, Block E Model Town Lahore.
2. Shehnila Khalid daughter of Khalid Ali Khan resident of House No.
149, Block E Model Town Lahore.
3. Tehsildar Manga Avtar, Tehsil Raiwand District Lahore.
4. Naib Tehsildar Manga Avtar, Tehsil Raiwand District Lahore.
5. Patwari Manga Avtar, Tehsil Raiwand District Lahore.
6. Gardawar Manga Avtar, Tehsil Raiwand District Lahore.
7. Qanoon Goh, Manga Avtar, Tehsile Raiwind District, Lahore

Respondents…

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 161 OF THE PUNJAB

LAND REVENUE ACT 1967 AGAINST ORDER
DATED 07.01.2020 PASSED BY
TEHSILDAR/ASSISTANT COLLECTER RAIWAND.
Respectfully Sheweth,

1. That compendium of the present appeal as gleaned and unfolded

from the record of the case are that the Respondents malafidely filed
application in court of Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Tehsil Raiwand
District Lahore for partitioning of the joint property owned and
possessed by both the parties situated at Khewat No. 425, 426, 427,
428, 429, 430, 431 Manga Avtar, Tehsil Raiwand District Lahore.

2. That the Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector Tehsil Raiwand District

Lahore, while acting illegally passed impugned order dated

07.01.2020 arbitrary, capriciously in hasty manners against the law
and facts which are liable to be set aside and declared void abinito
being passed contrary to law and without jurisdiction on inter alia:

GROUNDS

i. That impugned order dated 07.01.2020 passed is against the

law and facts, passed without jurisdiction and without
application of judicial mind.
ii. That the impugned order dated 07.01.2020 is passed against
the principles of natural justice being passed without awarding
opportunity of being heard, and assuming jurisdiction, the
application for partition in case of inheritance is to be made
under section 135-A of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1967.
The bare reading of said section has made it compulsory to
“serve notice on all joint land-owners”. In the instance case,
the Appellant did not comply with the
process/notices/summon or other allied process was adopted.
iii. That scrutiny of the order sheet shows that the order for
notices was made just once over the whole proceedings.
Order for summoning was never repeated except on
01.08.2019 for the first and last time. It is pertinent to mention
here that section 24 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1967,
provides a detailed process for “modes of service of
summons” but the order dated 07.01.2020 was passed against
the law and in sheer violation of the law.
iv. That while ignoring the law neither summons were issued in
accordance with law, nor any affixation as required under
section 24(2)(b) was carried out, and bypassing all the legal
formalities, and order for proclamation was made in paper of
Daily Nai Baat, but the Respondents being collusive with
authorities submitted advertisement in Daily Samaa. It is also
worth mentioning here that the court of Tehsildar was
informed that one of the Respondents was not within Pakistan,
hence, it is not possible to serve upon him a notice as required
by law. It is worthy to note here that service upon any person
not within territory of Pakistan shall also be made through an
 international paper, as the law provided under section 24(5),
was also vehemently violated.
v. That the appellant appeared before the court and informed that
an application for partition is false and frivolous as all the
parties are in good relation with each other and they also had a
partition plan mutually agreed by all the joint sharers but
contention of the appellant was not only ignored but the law
under section 135-A(1) of the Act it is mandatory to consider
private partition plan.
vi. That only one affidavit has been attached for both the
applicants. The affidavit is illegally used as a special power of
attorney by the Respondent i.e., individual to pursue the case.
vii. That the Appellant also filed an application for personal
appearance of the Applicant but the Tehsildar acted in sheer
violation of law as provided under section 142 of the Punjab
Land Revenue Act 1967, which made it mandatory to decide
all such question and it is also mandatory to hold inquiry.
viii. That the application for partition must be decided as per
mandatory provisions of law under section 137 of the Punjab
Land Revenue Act 1967, which made it compulsory to fix a
date of hearing. It is also worth mentioning that the appellant
was present in person but no opportunity of hearing was even
awarded.
ix. That the respondent/applicant in alliance with the authorities
wants to grab extra property and to damage the rights of the
appellant, who are trying to expediously proceed in partition
being carried without making limitation and boundaries which
is most important to determine real share of the parties.
x. That while passing impugned order the Tehsildar ignored the
fact that in a suit for partition the Fard was not exhibited and
examined in order to determine the ownership and interests of
the parties according to their shares.
xi. That an important piece of evidence as copy of latest proof of
ownership/Register Haqdaran Zameen was also neither
examined nor summoned to be part of the proceedings but
 impugned order was passed in a hasty manner ignoring legal
requirements and proofs.
xii. That the application for partition was filed with ulterior
motives to harass the Appellant as the property belongs to
appellants and respondents, and is owned and possessed
jointly as co-sharers. The same property is sakni property and
the Tehsildar is not competent forum to decide the partition
matter. The Appellant vehemently opposed the jurisdiction but
the Tehsildar erred to pass impugned order.
xiii. That record of proceedings shows the collusiveness of the
Respondents with connivance of Revenue Officer and the
Tehsildar that the Respondent filed application regarding
Khewat No. 425, but allied of the Respondents hastily
proceeded on Khewat No. 426.
xiv. That the Respondents neither moved any application for
correction of Khewat with the Revenue Officer, nor with the
Tehsildar and proceeded against law.
xv. That the Revenue officer and Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to
decide the Khewat consisting of Sakni/residential property, the
Revenue Officer while reporting never visited the property
and prepared a report on the whims of the Respondents. The
Revenue Officer acted against law and the Tehsildar also
supported his illegality and passed impugned order.
xvi. The property of the appellant and respondents alongwith co-
sharer is in nature of both agricultural and non-agricultural.
That the entire property has various roads, khalas, khambas,
trees, and various other installations in different areas which
mean that by partitioning one or two persons shares without
partitioning of the remaining joint owners will amount to
discrimination as some property might be sakni with wapda
vires going through or water way which can disturb other co-
sharers or the remaining property may not remain agricultural.
The Respondents are in collusiveness to take the cream and
not eat the cake with the other co-sharers
xvii. That there are so many variables to consider including the
report of Municipal to determine that either the property falls
 under limitation of municipal or not was also compulsory and
lastly the boundaries of the property not had been defined by
any had-bardari, it is also pertinent to mention here there is an
application for defining the boundry/ Had-Barrari has been
filed but no action has been taken. Without defining the
boundaries of the property it will amount to discrimination if it
is partitioned, as some of the co-shareres might get less land
due to the fact that the land is actually less than it is on paper.

PRAYER:

In view of above submissions it is humbly prayed that Appeal in

hand may kindly be accepted by setting aside impugned order 07.01.2020,
being against law and passed in sheer violation of law, as much as, corum
non judice.

It is further prayed that the Respondents may kindly be restrained

from doing any illegal act following impugned order dated 07.01.2020,
operation of impugned order may kindly also be suspend till final decision
of the instant appeal.

Any other relief which this honorable court deems fit may kindly be
awarded.

APPELLANT

Through

Usman Aman
Advocate High Court
Naeem & Company
23-Syed Mouj Darya Road, Lahore.
IN COURT OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE TEHSIL
RAIWAND DISTRICT, LAHORE

In Re: Haider Ali Safdar VS Amna Ahmad etc.

APPEAL. No._____________ of 2020

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 165 READ WITH 142 OF

THE PUNJAB LAND REVENUE ACT 1967, FOR
PROCEEDINGS OF STAY.

Respectfully submitted:

1. That the titled Appeal is pending adjudication before the Honorable

Court, yet to be decided.
2. That the impugned order is passed in sheer violation of law and to
damage valuable rights of the Appellant, the annexed appeal may
also be read as integral part of this application.
3. That the Appellant have good prima facie case likely to be succeed
in his favor but if the operation of impugned order not suspend and
set aside, the Applicant/Appellant will suffer an irreparable loss.
4. That the Appellant/Applicant joint share holder of the property
which is inherited in favor of the appellant.

In view of above submissions it is humbly prayed that while suspending

operation, the impugned order dated 07.01.2020 may kindly be set aside.

It is also humbly prayed that proceedings before the Respondents may

kindly be stayed till final decision of the appeal.

Any other relief which this honorable court deems fit may kindly be
awarded.

Applicant/Appellant

Through

Usman Aman
Advocate High Court
Naeem & Company
23-Syed Mouj Darya Road, Lahore.
IN COURT OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE TEHSIL
RAIWAND DISTRICT, LAHORE

APPEAL. No._____________ of 2020

AFFIDAVIT OF ZEEGHAM ALI KHAN son of Hamid Ali Khan

resident of House No. 81, Block No. H, Model Town, Lahore.

I, the above named deponent do hereby declare and affirm that the contents
of above annexed application and appeal are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom. The
annexed application and appeal may kindly be read as integral part of this
affidavit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on oath on this 23rd day of January that contents of above

affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT
IN COURT OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE TEHSIL
RAIWAND DISTRICT, LAHORE

APPEAL. No._____________ of 2020

AFFIDAVIT OF HAIDER ALI SAFDAR son of Khalid Ali Khan

resident of House No. 78, Block No. F, Model Town, Lahore.

I, the above named deponent do hereby declare and affirm that the contents
of above annexed application and appeal are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom. The
annexed application and appeal may kindly be read as integral part of this
affidavit.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on oath on this 23rd day of January that contents of above

affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT