Amarjit Singh vs Shangara Singh

S.R. Bunger, FC.

The present is a reference u/s 16(3) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, made by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, as per his order dated 30.3.1994 recommending that the order dated 3.4.1992, passed by the CollectorcumS.D.O. (C), Batala in a partition case, be either modified or reversed.

The facts of this case are that, respondent No. 1 Shangara Singh made an application to the TehsildarcumA.C. Ist Grade, Batala on 27.7.1987, for the separation of his 1/4th share, from out of the land measuring 179K7M, situate at village Rai Chak, tehsil Batala as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 198485. The details of the Khasra Nos. are given in the application for partition. The A.C. Ist Grade, Batala approved the mode of partition as per his order dated 21.5.1991, and further ordered the partition of land in accordance with the mode of partition, by preparing `Naqsa Bay'' as per his order dated 9.8.1991.

It may be pointed out that the A.C. Ist Grade, Batala does not seem to be knowing the difference between `Naqsa Bay'' and `Naqsa Zeem''. In his order dated 9.8.1991, the A.C. Ist Grade has recorded that `Naqsa Zeem'' has been received from the Kunungo and the petitionerShangara Singh does not have any objection to the partition of land as per `Naqsa Zeem''. The A.C. Ist Grade, Batala seems to have confused `Naqsa Zeem'' with `Naqsa Bay'', although the contents of his aforesaid decision are in order. It may be further pointed out that `Naqsa Bay'' is prepared in Form PTN2 (with reference to paragraph 18.12 of the Punjab Land Record Manual), which is a statement comparing area by share in the jointkhata, and the area allotted to the parties seeking partition; and `Naqsa Zeem'', is prepared in Form PTN3 (with reference to paragraph 18.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual), which is an instrument of partition on a stamped paper, which is prepared to give effect to the order of partition, after any appeal, filed against `Naqsa Bay'' has been decided or the period prescribed for filing an appeal has expired. So, in this case the `Naqsa Zeem'' has wrongly been mentioned by the A.C. Ist Grade, Batala as well as the Collector, Batala in their orders, which in fact, should be read as `Naqsa Bay''. `Naqsa Zeem'' is still to be prepared and sanctioned, which should have been prepared by A.C. Ist Grade, Batala after the appeal was rejected by the Collector, Batala. Against the order of A.C. Ist Grade dated 9.8.1991, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Batala on the grounds mentioned in the petition dated 23.9.1991, but the same was rejected by the Collector as per his order dated 3.4.1992. Against this order, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on the grounds stated in the petition dated 5.5.1992. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, as per his order dated 30.3.1994 has recommended that this revision be accepted in view of his observations. The operative part of the Commissioner''s order reads as follows:

"I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have also perused the file. From the arguments advanced it is to be made out there are trees in Khasra No. 47/12, 14 and 15 and there are trees also in Khasra No. 47/12/2. The value of these trees have not been calculated. The tubewell installed by the petitioners in Khasra No. 47/15 has been allotted to the respondent. I find that the A.C. Ist Grade has not passed a speaking order and has not discussed all the major issues. Similarly, the points raised by the petitioner in his appeal before the Collector have also not been suitably dealt. I have, therefore, no option but to recommend this revision to the Financial Commissioner Punjab for acceptance in view of my observations discussed above."

The learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view that the present petition has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected. The partition ordered by the A.C. Ist Grade, Batala, as per his order dated 9.8.1991, is in order; and an appeal filed by the petitioners against this order before the Collector, Batala, was on a very generalized grounds and no specific lacunae was pointed out in the grounds of appeal, which may go to show that the order of the A.C. Ist Grade suffered from any material irregularity or any illegality, which resulted in mis carriage of justice. The Collector, Batala had rightly rejected the appeal of the petitioners, because it was without any merit.

Before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, the petitioners have taken altogether new grounds, in their revision petition, which were not taken in the appeal made before the Collector, Batala. The pleas taken by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, appear to be an afterthought to prolong the litigation and to delay the finalisation of the partition of the land for the reasons best known to them only. The petitioners cannot be allowed to advance altogether new grounds in the petition, which they had never taken in their appeal before the Collector. Even the grounds on which the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division has recommended revision of the order dated 9.8.1991 passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, Batala, are flimsy and without much substance. Nonassessment of the trees, which are stated to be more than two years old, is a very minor and negligible point which was never taken up by the petitioners in their appeal before the Collector. Similarly, the controversy raised regarding the installation of tubewells in the specific Khasra numbers and the alleged unfair allotment of those Khasra numbers again appears to be not of much significance and consequence, because, if the petitioners were genuinely aggrieved by this, they should have raised this issue in their appeal before the Collector, Batala, but this was never done. As such, I do not agree with the recommendations made by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division in his order dated 30.3.1994; and finding no merit in the present reference, hereby reject the revision petition. The order dated 9.8.1991, passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, Batala does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality and no miscarriage of justice is discernible in this order. Hence the petition is rejected.

Announced.