Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 594 (PNJ)

Swaran Singh v. Satnam Singh

2001-05-24

I.S.BINDRA

body2001
ORDER I.S. Bindra, F.C. - This is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 30.1.2001 of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, whereby the revision petition of the petitioner challenging orders dated 31.3.1999 and 13.6.1996 passed by the Collector, Amritsar-I and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amritsar respectively in a case of partition, was dismissed. 2. Relevant facts of this case are that Satnam Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh respondents No. 1 to 3 were the original owners of land measuring 39K- 3M the remaining respondents and the petitioner had already purchased some pieces of land from them when respondent No. 1 sought partition. As per mode of partition, an area measuring 1K-7M being gair-mumkin was kept joint. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade found each share-holder alongwith his vendee entitled to 12K-12M of land and ordered final partition vide order dated 13.6.1996. On the appeal of Swaran Singh, petitioner, the Collector remanded the case to Assistant Collector Ist Grade for fresh decision. Swaran Singh further moved the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) who vide his order dated 22.6.1998 remanded the case to Collector for taking final decision of the case. Thereupon the Collector found that Darshan Singh and Charan Singh original share-holders had sold away 18 Marlas and 1K-6M of land in excess of their respective shares and that Satnam Singh had sold away land except 3K-16M out of his share. Accordingly, the Collector ordered that the land sold in excess of their shares by Darshan Singh and Charan Singh be deducted from their respective last vendees, viz. Charan Singh s/o Sewa Singh (18M out of Khasra No. 16/2/1) and Swaran Singh son of Dalip Singh petitioner (1K-6M out of Khasra No. 14/11). The petitioner challenged in revision the orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division who observed that the petitioner had to step into the shoes of his vendor and that if the original share-holder had sold the land in excess of his share, the extent of excess area is to be deducted from the last vendee and dismissed the revision petition. Hence the present revision petition. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties. Hence the present revision petition. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me that principle of deduction of area from the respective last vendees of the original share-holder who had sold land in excess of their shares is not correct. Nor could he suggest any other way to settle down the controversy. Besides, counsel for the parties including the petitioner had agreed on the point that Darshan Singh and Charan Singh had sold land in excess of their shares and the excess land is to be deducted from their last vendees and that Satnam Singh is entitled to have his complete share in the land, when the Collector passed the impugned order. Thus I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders and dismiss this revision petition. Petition dismissed.