LAND LAW’S PROJECT

Partition Under Punjab Land

Revenue Act, 1887

In partial fulfillment of BALLB five years course

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Ayushi Tyagi Ms. Upagya Sharma

Roll no: 1820 (Asst. Prof. of Land Law)

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Though my name appears on this project but the real credit for the project goes to my Land
laws professor, Ms. Upagya Sharma, who has provided me with the opportunity to work on
this project.

It is an immense pleasure to have to work on this project and I would like to show my
gratitude towards all those who helped me to complete this project.

I am very grateful to Almighty God, my friends, my family and my classmate.

3
 INDEX

S. No. Topic Page Number

1. Introduction 5

2. Basic Principles of Partition 6

3. Rights of Co-Owner 6

4. Types of Partition 7

5. Effect of Partition of Estate and Tenancies on Joint 8

liabilities on Rent and Revenue

6. Application for Partition 9

7. Restriction on Limitation of Partition 11

8. Notice for Partition 12

9. Procedure after Admission of Partition 13

10. Instrument of Partition 15

11. Affirmation of Partition Privately Affected 15

12. Cost of partition 16

13. Bibliography 18

4
 Partition Under Punjab Land Revenue Act,
1887
INTRODUCTION

Chapter 9 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 provides for a detailed procedure for the
partition of land holdings. Sections 110-126 of the Act confer right to a co-sharer to get his joint
property partition without any restriction. Chapter 9 envisages two types of partition. Firstly, a
partition of joint holding by the owners of the land and secondly, partition of tenancy by the
Court Tenants.

Application for the partition of his share in the land or tenancy if the following conditions are
fulfilled:
1. The right of occupancy must subsist at the time submission of the application.
2. The share is recorded under Chapter 4 as belonging to him at the time of the date of
application.
3. The right to share has been established by the decree which is still subsisting at the date
of application.

A written acknowledgement of the right has been executed by the all persons interested in the
admission or denial thereof. Among all the four conditions mentioned above, first condition is
mandatory and this kind of occupancy can be established by fulfilling either of the other three
conditions.

“A mortgagee cannot apply for partition unless he proves that he is entitled to it by

custom or by terms of his mortgage.”

In Baghar Singh & Ors. v. Baldev Singh & Ors. 1, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab held that
if the right of a person in the joint holding has been duly established by a decree of Civil Court,
he is entitled to get the partition of his share in the joint holding as it is covered by Clause (b) of
section.

1
1972 PLJ 124

5
6
Basic Principle of Partition

In Balwant Singh v. Ishwar Singh2, the law of partition is that co-sharers who come forward for
seeking partition of the land have to display clear title qua the land proposed to be partitioned,
and in the absence of the clear title all proceedings are nullity.

Who may apply for Partition?

Any joint owner and any joint tenant who has a right of occupancy in his holding nay apply for
partition if

a) his share entered in the last jambandi, or

(b) his right to a share has been established by decree or court, or

(c) his title has been admitted in writing by all persons interested in the admission or denial
thereof, (section iii see also financial commissioner’s standing order no. 27)

the mere fact that a man is a landowner as defined in section 3(2) of the land revenue act does
not entitle him to apply unless he fulfills one or other of the above three conditions (the
circumstances under which a mortgage in possession can claim partition of a joint holding are
discussed in revenue judgement no. 4 of 1903.)

The mere fact that a man is a landowner as defined in section 3(2) of the land revenue act does
not entitle him to apply unless he fulfills on or other of the above three conditions.

Rights of Co-Owner

Rights of co-sharers and their liabilities inter se were settled by a Division Bench in Sant
Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram 3, and the following propositions, inter alia,
were settled:
1. A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it.
2. A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not necessarily
amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all.
3. Possession of joint property by one co-owner, in the eye of law, possession of all even if all

2
2001 (3) RCR (Civil) 303 (FCH)
3
1961 AIR 528 PB

7
 but on are actually out of possession.
4. The above rule admits of an exception when there is ouster of a co-owner by another. But in
order to negative the presumption of the joint possession on behalf of all on the ground of
ouster, the possession of a co-owner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the
knowledge of the other as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and denies that of
other.

This judgment was cited with approval by the Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram
Swarup4.
1. Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been out of
possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment.
2. Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner
not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners.
3. Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement
consented by the other co-owners, it is open to anybody to disturb the arrangement
without the consent of other except by filing a suit for partition.
Also, in Bawi v. Bakhtawar Singh5, the Court held that the petitioner was not shown as co-
sharer in the latest record-of-rights at the date of application for partition in the joint khaata is
not her right in the land shown to be subsisting on the basis of any decree or acknowledgement
or admission in the pleadings then such a person has no locus standi to file for partition.

Types of Partition

1. Complete and incomplete partitions

Where a complete partition is made, there is a total severance of rights and liabilities. They have
always been looked on with much disfavour in Punjab, where they cannot be carried out without
the express consent of the Financial Commissioner. The officer who makes the partition is
required to distribute the revenue of the divided land over the new holdings that have been
created (Section 120(1)). If in the case of a complete partition a fraudulent or erroneous
distribution takes place, the local Government may, at any time within twelve years after the
discovery of the mistake, order a fresh distribution. For this purpose, the best estimate possible

4
1981 PLJ 204
5
1996(3) RCR (Civil) 323 (FCP)

8
 must be made of the assets of each estate at the time of its formation.

2. Private Partition

Private Partitions are frequently made, but there is always a risk that some shareholders will
become dissatisfied and allege that the division was only one for convenience of cultivation and
was not intended to be of a permanent character. Landowners therefore, especially when the area
held in common is large and the shareholders are numerous, apply to the revenue authorities to
make the partition for them. Although no formal application is been lodged, the patwari is bound
to record voluntary partitions for orders in mutation register as soon as they have been acted on. In
passing orders on such cases, care must be taken not to treat as partitions proprietary rights of
arrangements, which the parties did not intend to be permanent. If any of them objects to the
record of alleged partition and attesting officer considers the objection valid, he should
record the mutation of names and refer the party seeking it to proceedings under Section 123 of
Land Revenue Act.

But if he finds that the objection is vexatious or frivolous and that a fair private partition has
actually been carried out, he should record the objection and his proposed order disallowing it and
submit the proceedings for confirmation to the Revenue Assistant Collector of the 1 st grade
authorized by Deputy Commissioner to deal with these cases.

In Arjan Singh v. Hem Raj6, it was held that where no report was made to Patwari and no
proceedings taken place under the Act for the finalization of partition. The partition cannot be
recognised.

Effect of Partition of Estate and Tenancies on Joint Liabilities for Revenue and Rent

Section 110 states about the effect of partition of estates and tenancies on joint liability for
revenue and rent. Section 110(1) provides that a partition of land, either under this Chapter or
otherwise, shall not, without the express consent of the Financial Commissioner, affect the joint
liability of the land or of the landowners thereof for the revenue payable in respect of the land or
operate to create a new estate and if any conditions are attached to that consent, those conditions
shall be binding on the parties to the partition and Section 110(2) states that a partition of
6
1986 RRR 458 (P&H)

9
 tenancy shall not without the express consent of the landlord, affect the joint liability of the co-
sharers therein for the payment of the rent.

In Darbara Singh v. Gurdial Singh7, Unless the partition is not affected in accordance with the
provisions of Land Revenue Act, Sections 111 to 123 and instrument of partition is drawn there
is no partition in the eye of law and the same cannot be implemented and there will be no
severance of status of co sharer as such.

Further, in Amarjeet Singh v. Shangara Singh8, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab observed
that Naksha is a statement comparing area by sharers in the joint khaata and the areas allotted to
parties seeking partition. Naksha Be is an instrument of a partition on a stamped paper, which is
prepared to give effect to the order of partition after any appeal against Naksha Be is decided or
time for such appeal expired.

Also, in Desh Raj v. Om Prakash9, the Financial Commissioner of Punjab held that the code of
civil procedure does not apply to partition proceedings under Chapter 9 of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act.

Application for Partition

Section 111 deals with the application of partition. It provides that “any joint owner of land, or
any joint tenant of a tenancy in which a right of occupancy subsists, may apply to a revenue-
officer for partition of his share in the land or tenancy, as the case may be, [with proposed plan of
partition indicating the quality and location of the land in question along with reasons for
partition and copy of latest jambandi] if – (a) on the date of the application the share is recorded
under Chapter IV as belonging to him or, (b) his right to the share has been established by a
decree which is still subsisting at that date, or (c) a written acknowledgement of that right has
been executed by all persons interested in the admission or denial thereof.”

In Narinder Singh Ishar Singh v. Jagdip Singh 10, the Court held that an application for the

7
1994 (1) RRR 460 (P&H)
8
1996(3) RCR (Civil) 324 (FCP)
9
1971 PLJ 397 (FCP)
10
1986 RRR 414 (FCP)

10
 partition can be made by any joint owner if his share is recorded under Chapter 4. The owner is
not in possession of land has unfettered right to seek partition of share in joint khaata. All c-
sharers have equal right of partition.

Moreover, it was also held that parties if not interest in seeking partition of joint-land through
intervention of Revenue Officer under Section 111 they are at liberty to effect private partition
and get private partition affirmed by Revenue Officer under section 123 or getting partition
incorporated in revenue record by making application to Halaqa Patwari as envisaged under
Chapter 7.1 of Punjab Land Records Manual by withdrawing partition application.

Partition application Afresh

Previous inconclusive partition proceedings have no impact or bearing on fresh partition

application. Under Section 111 no bar on any of the co-sharers in applying afresh for seeking
separation of one’s share on the basis of entries in latest and updated record-of-rights.

In Rehmdin v. Nur Mohd.11, Partition proceedings if remain dormant for inordinate period due
to inexplicable reasons on account of inaction or indifference on the part of any of the c-sharers
at any stage before culmination in drawing up of instrument of Partition should be deemed to
have been closed. Not prudent to revive such partition proceedings later, even if all c0-sharers
press for their revival.

Different khewats- partition has to be made khewat-wise

The partition of joint agricultural land, through the invention of Revenue Officers is basically
done khewat wise. For each khewat a separate application for partition is needed.
In Chetan Kaur v. Dalip Singh12, one application more than one khewats can be clubbed, where
the co-sharers in all such khewats, irrespective of the quantum of shares are common, and not
otherwise, meaning thereby partition of such khewats cannot be done by clubbing them together
in one application and presently all three khewats could not be combined for partition in one
application. Hence, separate application for each khewat is required.

11
1998 (2) RCR (Civil) 531 (FCP)
12
1998(4) RRR (Civil) 605 (FCP)

11
 Restrictions or Limitations on Partition

Section 112 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act lays down some restrictions or limitations on
partition of the land holding. Firstly, the places of worship and burial grounds held in, before
partition shall continue to be so even after partition but if the parties agree among themselves and
filed their agreement on record with Revenue Officer then such a restriction will not operate.
Secondly, the partition of:

1. Any embankment, water pots, well or bank and any land on which the supply of water to
such work may depend;
2. Grazing grounds;
3. Any land which is occupied as the site of a town or village and is assessed to Land
Revenue.

The partition of above said properties may be refused by the Revenue Officer, in case, the
Revenue Officer forms an opinion that the partition of such property is likely to cause
inconvenience to the co-sharers or other persons directly or indirectly interested therein or the
Revenue officer is of the opinion that it is likely to diminish the utility of such property to those
persons.

Thirdly, the revenue-Officer may disallow the partition, in case, the application for partition is by
joint owners of land and which may result into the severance of the property into two or more
parts and also the tenancy thereon, unless and until, the tenants assents to the severance.

Fourthly, the Revenue Officer may absolutely disallow the partition of a tenancy, in case, the
landlord objects to the partition.

In Prithi Singh v. Asstt. Director, Consolidation, Rohtak 13, the Court held that right to object is
only of owner or right holder. The tenant not claiming any right or title so far as ownership of
land is concerned cannot object to partition.

13
1980 PLJ 640
12
13
 Where title is doubtful

In Prita Jit Singh and others v. Amro Dayal, it was held that Revenue Officers are required to
proceed with partition of property only in such cases where the title of parties is clear. In case
there is doubt about title, they should reject application for partition leaving the parties to get the
question of title settled before seeking partition.

In this case, the title of petitioners was not clear both on basis of customary law as well as on the
basis of entries in revenue record. Wazab-ul-Urj of the village contains a provision which bars
partition of the land. Use of Shamlat Deh in the column of revenue record would also imply that

land is meant for common good of the village community. It was observed that Revenue Officers
rightly refused to proceed with the partition.

 Partition of a well
 Place of worship
 Other persons directly or indirectly interested
In Mahendra v. Jage Ram14, It is also settled law that partial partition is not permissible.
However, non-agricultural land can be excluded from partition. For that purpose, there must be
positive findings that the part of land excluded was non-agricultural.

Notice of Application for Partition

Section 113 provides that the Revenue-officer, on receiving the application under section 111,
shall, if it is in order and not open to objection on the face of it, fix a day for the hearing thereof,
and-
1. Cause notice of the application and of the day so fixed to be served on such of the
recorded co-sharers, as have not joined in the application [to submit their replies and
plans of partition with cogent reasons, and, if the share of which partition is applied for,
is a share in a tenancy, on the landlord also; and
2. If he thinks fit, cause the notice to be served on any other person whom he deems to be
directly or indirectly interested in the application [to submit their replies and plans of
partition with cogent reasons.

14
1999 (3) RCR (Civil) 483 (FCH)
14
15
Absolute Disallowance of Partition

Section 115 provides that “After examining such of the co-sharers and other persons, as may be
present on that day, the Revenue Officer may, disallow the partition in those cases only where
application is made for the partition of common path, common water-course or such like place,
used for common purposes15.

Procedure on Admission of Application

Section 116 lays down that “If the Revenue Office does not refuse the application under the last
foregoing section, he shall ascertain the question, if any the dispute between any of the person
interested distinguishing between:

1. Question as to title of which partition is sought; and

2. Questions as to the property to be divided, or the mode of making the partition.”

The Punjab Records Manual deals with the setting of mode of partition wherein it has been
provided that before sanctioning the mode of partition, Asstt. Collector 1st Grade should visit the
spot and then decide the method of the partition to be followed in dividing the land in accordance
with the shares of the parties. A map of the land under partition and statement showing area to be
divided and shares of the parties should also be got up from the patwari halqa and Kanungo. At
the time of setting of the ode of partition, the Revenue Officer should not disturb the possession
of the parties as well as possible.
When a Revenue Officer entertains an application for partition, he must first determine whether
there is any dispute between the parties in regard to the title of the property for this purpose, the
Revenue Officer should hold a preliminary enquiry into the question of title and give his findings
in terms of Section 116 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, whether the question of title, if or if not
involved in the partition proceedings.

In Bir Bhan v. Surajmani16, if rightly or wrongly, the Revenue Officer comes to the conclusion
that there is question of title involved he should comply with the provisions of Section 117 of the
Act and decide the question himself as a Civil Court or refer the parties to a competent Civil
Court and should not continue with the proceedings until the question of title is decided as such.

15
Amended vide The Punjab Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2011.
16
1969 PLJ 530
16
Disposal of Questions as To Title in Property to Be Divided

Sub-section (1) of the Section 117 states that “When there is a question as to title in any of the
property of which partition is sought, the Revenue Officer may decline to grant the application
for partition until the question has been determined by a competent Court or he may himself
proceed to determine the question as though he were such a Court.”
Sub-Section (2) provides that “Where the Revenue-officer himself proceeds to determine the
question, the following rules shall apply, namely:
 If the question is one over which Revenue Court has jurisdiction, the Revenue-Officer
shall proceed as Revenue Court under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
 If the question is one over which a Civil Court has jurisdiction, the procedure of the
Revenue Officer shall be that applicable to the trial of an original suit by a Civil Court
and he shall record a judgment and decree containing the particulars required by the Code
of Civil Procedure to be specified therein.
 An appeal shall lie from the decree of the Revenue-Officer under clause (b) as though
that decree was a decree of a Subordinate Judge in an original suit.
 Upon such an appeal being made, the District Court or High Court, as the case may be,
may issue an injunction to the Revenue-officer requiring him to stay proceeding pending
the disposal of the appeal.
 From the appellate decree of a District Court upon such an appeal, a further appeal shall
lie to the High Court if such a further appeal is allowed by the law for the time being in
force.”

Administration of Property Excluded from Partition

Section 119 says that “When any such property as referred to in Section 112, clause (2), is
excluded from partition, the Revenue Officer may determine the extent and manner in which
the co-sharer and other persons interested therein may make use thereof and the proportion in
which expenditure incurred thereon and profits derived therefrom, respectively, are to be
borne by and divided among those persons or any of them”.

Distribution of Revenue and Rent After Partition

Section 120(1) lays down that “The amount of revenue to be paid in respect of each of the
holdings into which land has been divided on a partition and the amount of rent to be paid in
17
respect of each of the portions into which a tenancy has been so divided, shall be determined by
the Revenue- Officer making the partition”.

Instrument of Partition

Section 121 provides that “when a partition is completed, the Revenue Officer shall cause an
instrument to be prepared and the date on which the partition is to take effect to be recorded
therein”. The term “completion of partition proceedings” appearing in Section 121 of the Act
says that when partition is completed, the Revenue Officer shall cause an instrument of partition
to be made and the date on which the partition is to take effect be recorded herein. The plain
reading of the Section 121 provides that instrument of partition is to be prepared after the
partition had been completed which means that one the distribution of revenue, rent etc. had
been determined under Section 120 of the said Act partition is complete. The joint status of the
parties comes to an end once the partition order has been passed. Partition is not effective in the
absence of instrument of partition. No severance of status of co-sharers takes place in the
absence of instrument of partition and delivery possession of the allotted portion joint land to
parties.

Delivery of Possession of Property Allotted on Partition

Section 122 lays down that “an owner or tenant to whom any land or portion of a tenancy, as the
case may be, is allotted in proceedings for partition shall be entitled to possession thereof as
against the other parties to the proceedings and their legal representatives and a Revenue-officer
shall, on application made to him for the purpose by any such owner or tenant at any time within
three years

from the date recorded in the instrument of partition under the last foregoing section, give effect
to that instrument so far as it concerns the applicant as if it were a decree for immovable
property.”

Affirmation of Partition Privately Effected

Section 123(1) provides that “in any case which partition has been made without the intervention
of a Revenue Office, any party thereto may apply to a revenue-officer for an order affirming the
partition”. Then Sub-section (2) provides that “on receiving such an application, the revenue-
officer shall inquire into the case and finds that the partition has in fact been made, he may make

18
 an order affirming it and proceed under Sections 119, 120, 121 and 122 or any of those sections,
as circumstances may require, in the same manner as if the partition had been made on an
application to himself under this Chapter”.

Power to Make Rules as To the Costs of Partition

Section 124 provides that the Financial Commissioner may make rules for determining the costs
of partition under this Chapter and the Mode in which such costs are to be apportioned.

Re-Distribution of Land According to Custom

Section 125 says that “when by established custom any land in an estate is subject to periodical
redistribution a revenue-officer may, on the application of any of the land-owners, enforce the
redistribution according to the custom and for this purpose may exercise all or any of the powers
of revenue-officer in proceedings for partition”.

Officers Who May Be Empowered to Act Under This Chapter

Section 126 provides that “the revenue-officer by whom the proceedings may be taken under this
Chapter shall be a Revenue officer of a class not below that of Assistant Collector of the first
grade”.
In the case of Ramji Dass v. Arjan Singh17, it was held that Under Section 126 of the Punjab
Land Revenue Act, partition proceedings may be taken only by the revenue officer not below
that of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (2nd Grade for Haryana). An Assistant Collector, 1 st Grade,
may however, sent a partition case to an Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade for investigation and
report.

Appeal

The law regarding appeal in partition cases is a little complicated, a form a partial exception to
the general rule that appeal from an assistant collector of any grade lie to the collector, an order
under section 115 of the land revenue act absolutely disallowing a partition is appealed to the
collector. but if he does not reject the application ab initio the assistant collector must proceed
ascertain the questions in dispute distinguishing between

(a) question as to title in the property and

(b) question as to the property to be divided or the mode of the making the partition.

17
1968 PLJ 241
19
The procedure in cases in which a question of a title has to be settle has been explained in the
preceding paragraph. If the assistant collector has acted as a civil court, and appeal will lie to the
district judge, if as a revenue court to be collector. but appeal from any order he may pass “as the
property to be divided or mode of a making a partition” are heard by the collector.

Conclusion

The partition under this act is exclusively dealt to determine the extent of liability of for payment
of rent and land revenue by the interested parties. In also determines joint liability of landlord
and tenants for payment of land revenue as both ownership and tenancy can be partitioned under
the said act.

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
I have taken help of the following sources of information to research on the topic:

1. Neety Kaul, Land laws in Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh: Chawla Publications, 2011:
revised 4th ed., p. 286.
2. P.S. Khurana & Amarjit Khurana, Khurana’s A Treatise on Land laws in Punjab,
Chandigarh: Shree Ram Law House, 2003, p. 80.
3. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/partition-under-land-laws-of-punjab/#_edn21
4. https://www.legalcrystal.com/cases/search/name:the-punjab-land-revenue-act-1887
5. P.S. Khurana & Amarjit Khurana, Khurana’s A Treatise on Land laws in Punjab,
Chandigarh: Shree Ram Law House, 2003, pp.74-75
6. Punjab Land Administration manual.
7. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887).
8. https://revenue.punjab.gov.in/?q=partitions

21