The Supreme Court has held that under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in cases of partition is concurrent with that of the Civil Court.
The Court further held that merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed, “… the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in the cases of partition is concurrent with that of the civil court.
Therefore, for the purpose of interpreting Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act, the Court can safely draw an analogy from the provisions contained in Order XX, Rule 18 C.P.C. which pertain to the procedure to be followed on the passing of the decree for the partition of the property. … when a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. At this stage, such decision is required to be treated as the “decree”.” Source
