Roop Chand vs Shiv Chand and another

B.B. Mahajan, F.C.

This is a reference under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ferozepur Division vide his order dated the 22nd September, 1983 recommending the acceptance of the revision of the petitioner and setting aside the order of the Revenue Officers below.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application for partition of the land measuring 116 Kanals 14 Marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Mehma Sarja to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhatinda. The petitioner filed objections in which he stated that private partition had already taken place between the parties and a question of title was involved and produced photostat copies of the partition deeds in support of this contention. After going through the record, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade rejected the application vide his order dated the 5th February, 1982 and proceeded with the partition proceedings. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Collector Bhatinda, who, vide his order dated the 18th March, 1982, dismissed the same holding that the petitioner failed to prove the fact of private partition in respect of the land in dispute. Not satisfied with the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division who after going through the record and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the parties had been cultivating the same parcel of land for the last 12/14 years. It was also held that the respondents did not prove that the memorandum of partition produced by the petitioner were false or fabricated. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the claim of private partition was prima facie established in this case and a question of title was involved. He, therefore, vide his order dated the 22nd September, 1983, recommended the revision petition for its acceptance before me.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in person. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhatinda in his order dated the 5th February, 1982 had not accepted the plea of private partition mainly on the ground that this had not been implemented in the revenue records.The Collector vide his impugned order dated the 18th March, 1982 had also not accepted the plea on this ground and the ground that no specific Khasra numbers had been mentioned in the memorandum of partition produced by the petitioner. If the partition had been incorporated in the revenue records the question of private partition would not have arisen. There is no law that a private partition which has not been incorporated in the revenue record would not be accepted as valid in the partition proceedings. So far as the fact that specific Khasra numbers have not been mentioned in the deed of private partition produced by the petitioner is concerned, as explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner the memorandum gives the boundaries surrounding the share of each of the cosharers which is a exact description of the land coming to the share of various cosharers as that given by Khasra numbers. The memorandum of partition could not, therefore, be thrown out on this ground alone. The respondent No. 2 has not been able to advance any cogent reason against these pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioner. I accordingly accept the revision and set aside the impugned order dated the 5th February, 1982 of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhatinda and the 18th March, 1982 of the Collector Bhatinda SubDivision, Bhatinda. Since a question of title is prima facie involved in this case, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhatinda should proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before proceeding further with the partition application. The parties have been asked to appear before him on the 23rd January, 1984.