Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1291 (PNJ)

Inderjit Kaur v. Daljit Singh

2001-11-20

KARL REDDY

body2001
ORDER Karl Reddy, F. C. - This is a petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seeking to revise the order dated 27.2.1998 of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby he accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 8.2.1994 of the Collector, Tarn Taran, and upheld the order dated 20.7.1993 of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Tarn Taran in proceedings for partition of land measuring 347K 2M situated in the revenue estate of Jhabal Kalan, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar. 2. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 are the widow and minor sons of Narvail Singh deceased while petitioner No. 4 is his father. Smt. Inderjit Kaur had executed Power of Attorney dated 4.4.1991 in favour of Swaran Singh, a copy of which is available on the file of the Collector. The present petition was filed by Swaran Singh through counsel Shri R.S. Chauhan Advocate. During the pendency of the proceedings, Swaran Singh died and an application was moved for impleading his legal heirs who are his son Manjit Singh, his widow Mohinder Kaur, aforesaid L.Rs., and family of Narvail Singh. Smt. Inderjit Kaur has executed a Power of Attorney dated 14.12.1998 in favour of Manjit Singh. 3. The application for partition is dated 29.5.1991. On 17.7.1993, Swaran Singh through counsel Sh. J.L. Sood Advocate had filed objections to the partition proceedings as under : (i) that Sadhu Singh shareholder mortgaged land measuring 23K 14M bearing Khasra Nos. 172//6, 23, 17 vide registered deed dated 25.7.1997 to Satnam Singh son of Jarnail Singh. (These Khasra numbers are not part of the area sought to be partitioned and the objector has not shown that he is competent to raise such objection on behalf of the mortgagee, Satnam Singh son Jarnail Singh); (ii) that Chanchal Singh, Charan Singh sons of Haro are shareholders to the extent of 92K 11M but had sold land in excess of their share. (Again it has not been shown how the objector was competent to file objection on behalf of the un-named vendee); (iii) that Didar Singh, Swinder Singh, Darshan Singh shareholders have sold land measuring 30K 17M to Swaran Singh in respect of which a civil Suit is pending before the Sub Judge, Tarn Taran fixed for 23.7.1993. (Again it has not been shown how the objector was competent to file objection on behalf of the un-named vendee); (iii) that Didar Singh, Swinder Singh, Darshan Singh shareholders have sold land measuring 30K 17M to Swaran Singh in respect of which a civil Suit is pending before the Sub Judge, Tarn Taran fixed for 23.7.1993. Hence a question of title has arisen; and (iv) that Narvail Singh son of Swaran Singh has purchased 19K 4M of land bearing Khasra Nos. 162//16, 23, 8 vide registered sale deed dated 25.7.1977 and is in possession thereof. (In the present petition, however, it is averred that the petitioners had purchased 13K 17M on 2.3.1993). 4. The alleged purchase of land by Narvail Singh vide registered sale deed dated 25.7.1977 is not reflected in the revenue record i.e. Jamabandis for the years 1985-86 and 1990-91, copies of which are on the file. Narvail Singh and subsequently his legal heirs are shown as tenants. Swaran Singh vendee stepped into the shoes of the co-sharer from whom he purchased land and has no right to challenge the Mode of Partition already framed much less to raise a question of title by subsequently instituting a civil suit and demand that the proceedings be stayed. 5. The main ground on which the order of partition has been assailed is that the petitioners have not been served in accordance with law. Section 11(3)(a) of the Act requires recorded co-sharers as have not joined in the application to be served. Swaran Singh was not recorded as a co-sharer and hence was not required to be served. As and when he disclosed his title, he was made a party. It was not necessary to serve Narvail Singh and his legal heirs in view of the fact that they were not recorded in the ownership column of the Jamabandi in force when the application for partition was filed. The other ground is that Swaran Singh has been given less land than what he had purchased from the co-sharers. This matter has already been settled by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade while holding that the vendee had sold land in excess of his share to Swaran Singh. 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.