Chetan Kaur vs Dalip Singh

S.B. Bunger, F.C.

The present case has been reported by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 9.2.1994, passed by the Collector, SubDivision, Barnala, District Sangrur, in a case of partition of joint agricultural land, with his recommendation, that, the order dated 24.3.1993, passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, as well as the order dated 9.2.1994, passed by the Collector, SubDivision, Barnala, be set aside, and the case be remanded to the TehsildarcumA.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, for deciding the whole issue afresh, after allowing opportunity to the parties for bringing their evidence and documents on record, as per his reference dated 21.4.1997.

The brief facts of this case are, that Dalip Singh son of Nahar Singh resident of village Dhanoula Kalan, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur, had made an application dated 30.7.1991, to the TehsildarcumA.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, for the separation of his share with the respondents from out of the joint land, comprised in Khewat No. 588 (199 kanals 3 marlas), Khewat No. 589 (34 kanals 0 marla) and Khewat No. 590 (3 kanals 6 marlas), situate at village Dhanoula Kalan, with the various vicissitudes in this case, the A.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, vide his order dated 24.3.1993, had approved `Naksha Alaf''. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioners Chetan Kaur etc. had filed an appeal before the Collector, SubDivision, Barnala, which was rejected vide Collector''s order dated 9.2.1994. Against this order, Chetan Kaur etc. had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as a result of which, the present case has been reported vide reference dated 21.4.1997.

The learned counsel for the petitioners No. 1 to 4 has been heard. None came present on behalf of the respondents, despite an opportunity of being heard having been provided to them. It is a reference case, and it has been thought appropriate to decide this case on merit, on the basis of the facts available on the record.

After thorough perusal of the record, I find, that, in all the three Khewats, for which partition have been sought, vide partition application dated 30.7.1991, the applicantDalip Singh, no doubt, is a cosharer, but in all the three Khewats, the other cosharers are not common. As such, the application for the partition dated 30.7.1991, was not in order; and the same should have been rejected initially. The partition of jointagricultural land, through the intervention of the RevenueOfficers, under Chapter IX of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, is basically done Khewatwise; and for each Khewat, a separate application for partition is needed, under Section 111 of the Act ibid. However, in one application for partition, more than one Khewats can be clubbed, where the cosharers in all such Khewats, irrespective of the quantum of shares are common, and not otherwise. This would mean, that, those Khewats, where cosharers are not common, the partition of such Khewats cannot be done by clubbing them together in one application.

In the instant case, the application for partition was made for partition of Khewats No. 588, 589 and 590; and in all these three Khewats, although Dalip Singh has a share, but, the other cosharers are different. As such, all these three Khewats could not be combined for partition in one application; and the applicant was required to make a separate application for each Khewat, under Section 111 of the Act ibid. As the `Naksha Alaf'' prepared in the instant case, is violative of the abovementioned axiom, so, the order passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, as well as, by the Collector, SubDivision, Barnala, is not in conformity with the provisions of law, and thus, are illegal and improper; which merit to be set aside.

In view of the above, the present revision petition is accepted; the impugned orders are quashed; and the partition application dated 30.7.1991, is also rejected, being incompetent. The applicant for partition, namely, Dalip Singh, if he so wishes, can seek partition of his share in the jointland, by making three separate applications for the partition of his share in all the three Khewats, under Section 111 of the Act ibid.

However, as revealed from the record, as per the Civil Court decree dated 29.7.1993, passed by the learned SubJudge, IInd Class, Barnala, in Civil Suit No. 442 of 12.8.1991, Nand Kaur widow of Jangir Singh has been declared as coowner in possession of the suit land viz. comprised in Khewat No. 588 (200 kanals and 10 marlas) to the extent of 1/24 share. Apparently, Nand Kaur mother of Chetan Kaur has 1/24 share in the land comprised in Khewat No. 588 only, and she does not have any share in the other two Khewats viz. Khewat Nos. 589 and 590, the partition of which has also been sought by Dalip Singh. But the learned Commissioner, in his reference has failed to point this out, and the reference gives the impression as if, Nand Kaur owns 1/24 share in all the three Khewats, which is not correct.

Now, as the Civil Court through its decree dated 29.7.1993 has established the share of Nand Kaur in Khewat No. 588, and against this decree, the appeal filed by Karam Singh etc., also stands rejected by the Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide his order dated 4.3.1997, passed in Civil Appeal No. 97 of 24.8.1993, so, in view of the provisions contained in Section 111(b), the RevenueOfficers are required to take cognizance of the share of Nand Kaur and to allot land to her in the partition proceedings in Khewat No. 588. As such, any cosharer in the jointland, comprised in Khewat No. 588, if he wishes to seek partition of his share, he is required to make Nand Kaur as a party in the partition proceedings, indicating her 1/24 share in the jointland.

However, it would be advisable, if Nand Kaur gets the decree in her favour incorporated in the revenue record by contacting the functionaries of the Revenue Department; otherwise, on the basis of the Civil Court decree dated 29.7.1993, she is entitled to 1/24 share in Khewat No. 588; and she can also seek partition of her share from out of the jointKhewat by making a partition application, under Section 111(b) of the Act ibid to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, concerned, provided the decree be still subsisting on the date of application.

In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is accepted; and the partition proceedings in this case being vitiated and void ab initio, are quashed; and the application for partition dated 30.7.1991, is also rejected. The case was adjourned for order to 1.4.1998.

Announced.