Harbans Singh vs Charanjit Singh

J.S. Kesar, FC

This is revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 15.1.2004, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Collector dated 9.4.2003.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Charanjit Singh filed an application for partition of land in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahar regarding Khewat No. 20 Khatauni Nos. 34 & 35, Khewat No. 162, Khatauni No. 798, Khewat No. 485, Khatauni No. 477 and Khewat No. 648, Khatauni No. 983 and 984 situated in village Urrapar, Tehsil and District Nawanshahar as per Jamabandi for the year 199293. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahar proceeded ex parte against the present petitioner and the order of partition was passed on 17.12.1999. The petitioner filed application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 17.12.1999 before the Collector, Nawanshahar. The Collector, Nawanshahar dismissed the same on 1.1.2001. The respondent filed revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar challenging the order of the Collector, Nawanshahar dated 10.1.2001. The learned Commission (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the Collector, Nawanshahar on 28.11.2002 and remanded the case back to the District Collector, Nawanshahar for a decision as to whether the sanction should be granted to review the order dated 17.12.1999 or not. The District Collector, Nawanshahar dismissed the review petition vide order dated 9.4.2003. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar challenging the order of the District Collector, Nawanshahar dated 9.4.2003. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dismissed the revision petition on 15.1.2004, necessitating the present revision petition.

I have heard the counsel for the parties. Sh. G.S. Nagra, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade has wrongly partitioned the land of 4 Khewats on the one application filed by the respondent. He has submitted that all the cosharers mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 199293 have not been made a party to the partition application. Thus, the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahar, dated 17.12.1999 is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. It has been further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that inferior land beyond the drain has been given to the petitioner which is against the principle of justice. The partition should have been made Khewat wise, keeping in view the quality and kind of land. Therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, the matter may kindly be sent back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahar for deciding the application for partition afresh. The reference has also been made to the Mushtri Munadi report which is undated. The Jamabandi for the year 199293 has been produced before me which shows that Nirmal Singh, Talwinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh are also cosharers in Khewat No. 20, Khatauni No. 34, but they were not arrayed as party. Thus, the application for partition is bad in the eyes of law. Lastly, a prayer has been made that the Commissioner has failed to judiciously exercise his revisional powers under Section 15 of the Act mentioned in para 6 of the impugned order while dismissing the revision petition.

The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the orders of the learned Commissioner and the lower revenue officers are legal and the same have been passed in accordance with law. He has further submitted that the petitioner was rightly proceeded ex parte and the final order of partition has been passed after considering all the relevant facts. The learned counsel has pleaded for the dismissal of the revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The land under partition is in 4 Khewats and as per application for partition, all the cosharers were not made party for partition of land. Moreover, it was a revision petition filed before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar under Section 16 of the Act. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Commissioner has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him and has wrongly rejected the case of the petitioner while applying Section 15 of the Act. It is also a fact as revealed from the site plan that the part of land in dispute is also situated beyond the drain and all the Khasra Nos. which are situated beyond the drain and are inferior in quality have been allotted to the petitioner.

From the above facts, it transpires that noninclusion of all the co sharers has been done deliberately and the petitioner has not been given his due share as far as the quality of land is concerned. Without hearing all the cosharers before effecting partition, will not be in the interest of justice. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and remand the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for deciding the partition afresh after hearing all the necessary parties. The parties have been directed to appear before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 2.4.2004. The parties be communicated.

Revision allowed.