Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1399 (PNJ)

Mohinder Kaur v. Balkar Singh

2001-12-13

KARL REDDY

body2001
ORDER Karl Reddy, FC. - This is a petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seeking to revise the order dated 27.9.2001 of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, and to restore the order dated 11.10.1999 of the Collector, Amritsar. 2. On 4.12.1995, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application for partition of land measuring 37 k 15 m comprised in Khata/Khatauni Nos. 122/273, 123/274, 124/275, 271/575, as per jamabandi for 1991-92, situated in the revenue estate of Vallah, tehsil and district Amritsar. The petitioners sought to be impleaded the vendees as a party in the partition proceedings since an agreement to sell land measuring 4 k bearing Khasra no 81/1 min, had been executed on 18.3.1994 by respondents No. 1 to 2 in favour of their predecessor-in-interest Bhan Singh. The petitioners also raised a question of title namely that a suit for specific performance arising out the agreement was pending in the civil court. (The suit was decreed on 4.6.1998 with a direction to the defendants-vendors to execute a sale deed within a period of 2 months and to the plaintiffs-vendees to deposit the balance consideration within a period of one month. The plaintiffs-vendees deposited the due amount on 16.7.1998.) After execution of the agreement of sale, respondents No. 1 and 2 had no right, title or interest in the property in dispute. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not entertain their plea and passed the final order of partition on 25.2.1999. In appeal against that order, the SDM-cum-Collector vide order dated 11.10.1999 remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for fresh decision after taking into consideration the judgment and decree of the civil court, and with a direction to decide to question of title, if it exists. 3. In second appeal, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Collector. He held that till date no sale dead had been executed or registered. Prospective vendees have no right to be impleaded as party to the partition proceedings. Even otherwise, the order dated 2.6.1997 of the Assistant Collector rejecting the Question of Title raised by Bhan Singh had not been challenged. Rather, Bhan Singh had made a statement that partition may be effected keeping in view possession of the parties, which is on record. Thereafter, Mode of Partition had been framed on 3.4.1998. Hence this petition. 4. Even otherwise, the order dated 2.6.1997 of the Assistant Collector rejecting the Question of Title raised by Bhan Singh had not been challenged. Rather, Bhan Singh had made a statement that partition may be effected keeping in view possession of the parties, which is on record. Thereafter, Mode of Partition had been framed on 3.4.1998. Hence this petition. 4. The partition Naqshas have not been attached along with the order of the Assistant Collector dated 18.5.1999 from which it could be seen whether respondent Nos. 1-2 had disposed of their entire share in the joint holding. Counsel for the petitioners was unable to state categorically that respondents No. 1-2 did not have more than 4 k share in the joint holding. Consequently, an inference should be drawn against the petitioners. According to Section 111 of the Act, the following may apply for partition in joint land : (a) a person whose share was recorded as belonging to him as on the date of the application; or, (b) a persons whose right to a share has been established by a decree which is still subsisting on the date of application; or (c) a person whose right has been acknowledged in writing by all persons interested in the admission or denial thereof. The respondents fall in category (a). The petitioners do not fall in categories (a) and (c), and until the decree is executed, in category (b). Section 113 of the Act requires the Revenue Officer receiving an application for partition to issue notice to the recorded co-sharers. It is evident that the petitioners are not recorded co-sharers. 5. The petitioners have taken the additional ground that land in their possession has been given to the respondents. It is not obvious that possession has passed to them. Even if it has, land in possession of the respondents as per the record has to be given to the respondents, if possession is to be respected. When the decree is executed, possession will pass to the petitioners. Accordingly, the revision petition is without merit and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.