Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 -- Partition - Not permissible when a portion of land belongs to neither of the parties...........
Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121 -- Mere finalisation of Naksha Bay and preparation of Sanad Takseem - Partition not completed - Does not result in severance of relationship between co-owners...........
Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 118(3) -- Right to withdraw from partition - Conferred on applicant who moved partition application - Otherside i.e. respondent - Not entitled to move for withdrawal from partition...........
Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 13,16,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123 -- Even if no stay in appeal or revision in partition matter - Normally all proceedings are suspended...........
Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 117 -- Partial partition - Not necessary in partition that every parcel of land should have same co-sharers or co-owners - Part of land not included in partition as same not mentioned in original application for partition - Not correct - As land situated in the same village and owned by co-owners in equal shares - Partial partition not..........
Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 16,118(3) -- Revision against rejection of application for withdrawal from partition - Objection that partition proceedings already completed inasmuch as Sanad Takseem prepared and possession delivered in execution - Number of irregularities committed during partition proceedings - Immaterial that possession has changed hands - Order of..........
Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 111 -- Even if there are mistakes in partition application - Incumbent upon Revenue Officer-in-charge to see that: (i) due procedures were followed, (ii) all necessary proformas were completed, (iii) all parties were impleaded, and (iv) all lands of co-sharers were included...........
Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 118(3) -- Withdrawal from partition - Incumbent on Assistant Collector 1st Grade to satisfy himself that Naksha Bay did not defeat the purpose for which partition sought - Partition sought as applicant had made certain purchases and exchanges, planted fruit trees and wanted proper access to his fields - Not enough to say that trees were..........
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, Section 42 -- Partition and re-distribution of land of joint Khata amongst proprietors of the village - Land recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat in column of ownership and shown as Maqbooja Malkan in column of possession - Provision in Consolidation Scheme that joint Khatas will be..........
Possession -- Suit for possession and mesne profits - Respondent No.1 came in possession with the consent of one of the co-owners - Construction too raised with his consent - Normally a co-owner not entitled to raise construction of permanent nature on joint land without the consent of other co-owner - As construction had already been raised as such appropriate remedy now..........
