Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 967 (PNJ)

Puran Singh v. Surat Singh

2000-08-21

K.S.JANJUA

body2000
ORDER K.S. Janjua, FC. - This revision petition under Section 16(i) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987 has been preferred against the order (29.5.2000) of Additional Commissioner (A), Jalandhar Division, passed in a partition matter. 2. An application for partition of joint holding was filed by Surat Singh before AC-I, Jalandhar. MOP was proposed on 3.8.1988. Against this appeal was preferred by Respondent No. 1 to Collector pleading that land measuring 105K 06M received in exchange by the petitioner in lieu of land measuring 41K 09M be also included in MOP raising total land holding to 198K 11M instead of 134 Kanals. Appeal was accepted by the Collector (9.1.1989). Further appeal and revision preferred before Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were dismissed. Stand of the petitioner was also not acceded to in civil litigation upto High Court. AC-I then ordered fresh MOP (20.4.1994) regarding land measuring 198K 6M. Appeal and revision of petitioner against this order were dismissed by Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. Final partition of land measuring 198K-06M was then sanctioned by AC-I (31.3.1995). 3. Aggrieved by the order of AC-I, petitioner went in appeal before Collector, Jalandhar-II. After hearing the arguments of counsel for both the parties, Collector observed that Naqsha Zeem has been correctly prepared and no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out. Appeal was dismissed (29.2.1996). Still dissatisfied, revision was filed before Additional Commissioner (A), Jalandhar who also dismissed the same (29.5.2000). Hence this revision petition. 4. Sh. M.S. Kang, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner and apart from reiterating the grounds taken in revision petitioner, argued mainly on the point that order of AC-I (31.3.1995) is nullity in the eyes of law because same has been passed during pendency of appeal/revision. After passing order on 20.6.1994, AC-I continued with partition proceedings and sanctioned partition on 31.3.1995 while revision against MOP was still pending in the Court of Commissioner. Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate representing Respondent No. 1 contended that partition has become final and Sanad Takseem has already been issued. Against final partition no appeal/revision lies unless it is not in conformity with MOP. No such violation has been pointed out. He submitted further that other points raised by the petitioner have already been settled upto the level of Financial Commissioner and High Court. The petitioner is unnecessarily agitating the matter without pointing out any material irregularity in the partition order. 5. No such violation has been pointed out. He submitted further that other points raised by the petitioner have already been settled upto the level of Financial Commissioner and High Court. The petitioner is unnecessarily agitating the matter without pointing out any material irregularity in the partition order. 5. I have considered thoroughly the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and gone through the orders of subordinate Courts. Regarding question of title the petitioner has tried his claim at every possible forum and has lost his case. He is contesting the matter since 9.1.1989 when he first contested the order of Collector accepting appeal of Respondent No. 1. In a partition case, it is indeed a very lengthy litigation which should come to an end. I am inclined to agree with the arguments of counsel for the respondent that partition has become final and Sanad Takseem issued. It is well settled principle of law that partition become final with the issuance of instrument of partition which is enforceable like a decree of civil Court. Any proceedings against the final instrument of partition are incompetent, uncalled for and inconsequential. No reasons at all have been offered for invoking the revision jurisdiction of this Court. Total land holding (198K 6M) has been partitioned. This order of Collector holds sway. MOP is final. Partition is also final. The petitioner has failed to convince any Court about this case. I see, therefore, no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which could justify my interference. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed and order of Additional Commissioner (A) upheld. Announced. Revision dismissed.