Gurmukh Singh vs Sardul Singh and others

M.S. Chahal, F.C.

This is a revision petition filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, directed against the order dated 28.10.1991 passed by Shri B.C. Gupta, IAS, Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepore, whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioners.

The brief facts of the case are that Sardul Singh and Lakhmir Singh sons of Karnail Singh resident of village Wariswala Arain, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepore, filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Tehsildar), Zira, for partition of land measuring 15 kanals 8 marlas situated in the revenue estate of the village Warishwala Arain. After hearing the interested parties and examining the record, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Zira, vide his order dated 28.10.1987 sanctioned the final partition of the land between the parties on the basis of the partition application. Feeling aggrieved with the above order, Gurmukh Singh and Sarwan Singh sons of Amar Singh, resident of village Warishwala Arain, Tehsil Zira district Ferozepore filed an appeal before the SubDivision Collector, Zira, vide his order dated 29.7.1988 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, they filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, who also after hearing the petitioners through their counsel vide order dated 28.10.1991 dismissed the revision petition. Still feeling dissatisfied with the orders of the Commissioner, they have come up with the present revision petition before this court on the ground that the partition has not been made in accordance with the mode of partition.

Sh. Shailesh Mani Tripathi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioners and prayed that he has no objection, if the court could decide the case on merits and the grounds taken in the petition. On the other side Sh. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Respondents and argued that the partition had bene made in accordance with mode of partition which was announced and sanctioned by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Zira, in the pesence of both the parties and at that time they did not raise any objection against the mode of partition. He said that Collector and Commissioner have rightly dismissed their appeal and revision petition. In revision cases she argued the Financial Commissioner has limited scope to interfere until and unless the orders of the lower courts suffer from any material illegality or irregularity, therefore, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised. He prayed that the present revision petition may be dismissed.

I have gone through facts of the case and have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners has in fact not offered any arguments in support of his petition and has requested for a decision to be ordered on the basis of the grounds given in his petition. It is clear from the record that no objection was raised by the parties when the mode of partition was sanctioned by the A.C. 1st Grade, Zira, in their presence. The Id. Collector and the Id. Commissioner have correctly appreciated the facts of the case and have rightly rejected the appeal and revision petition respectively filed before them. No grounds at all have been offered for the revisional jurisdiction before this court to be invoked. It is not required to re assess evidence in revision proceedings and the reasons for which a revision petition could be entertained i.e. any material irregularity or illegality in the proceedings of lower courts have not at all been offered. The petition has therefore, no force and is accordingly, dismissed.

Announced.