Prithipal Singh, Col. vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab

G.R. Majithia and H.K.Sandhu, JJ.—This order disposes of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19125 of 1991, 3705 and 3719 of 1992. In all these petitions, petitioner has impugned the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh dated August 19, 1991 disposing of three revision petitions by a common judgment since common question of facts and law arose for determination.

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are brothers. They are recorded as joint owners of agricultural land situate in village Khurla Kingra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Respondent No. 2 filed an application of partition of the joint land. The petitioner was arrayed as respondent to the application. He took objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the joint land stood partitioned in a family settlement. He further stated that since a question of title had arisen, the revenue officer should stay his hand from partitioning the joint property till the civil Court adjudicates upon the question of title. The Collector, on appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had prima facie failed to establish that there was any private partition. He rejected the objection to the maintainability of the application for partition. On appeal, the Collector''s order was upheld by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division who in his order dated February 13, 1991 gave the following firm finding of the facts :

"I have minutely examined the record of the case and have given due consideration to the claims and contentions of both the parties. The point to be determined is whether private partition had taken place between the parties. I am afraid facts of the case do not suggest existence of any private partition. No such partition is reflected in revenue record. The respondent cannot draw any benefit out of the document R1. According to the letter written by Navpal Singh, father of the appellant and respondent, the alleged partition had taken place on 31.8.1957. If this were to be accepted how would one reconcile it with the contents of Exhibit R2 (gift deed dated 14.11.57) i.e. 21/2 months after the alleged partition. If the partition had taken place, why gift? Hence the hollowness of any claim of private partition."

The finding recorded by the Commissioner was affirmed in second revision by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh by his order dated August 19, 1991 and he held thus :

"I have heard the ld. counsel for the petitioner in all the three cases. The Collector and the Commissioner, vide their detailed judgments, have clearly held that there is no sign of private partition nor such partition is reflected in the revenue record. On record the parties were recorded as coowners on the suit land. During the course of arguments the ld. counsel for the petitioner was specifically asked repeatedly to show from copies of jamabandi in support of his contention to prove that the land was not joint. But he failed to show the proof in support of his contention and the citations quoted by the ld. counsel are not applicable in these cases."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the moment in an application for partition a defence is set up that the parties had partitioned the joint land in a family partition the revenue officer could not proceed with the partition application till the question is decided by the Civil court. The submission is not tenable. Merely raising the question will not debar the revenue officer from proceeding with the partition application. The plea has to be established by producing material in support of it. In the instant case, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) have given a positive finding of fact that the plea that there was a family partition is not supported by any evidence, on the contrary the land in dispute is recorded as joint ownership of the parties.

The petitions are bereft of any merit and are accordingly dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.