Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 611 (PNJ)

Swaran Singh v. Resham Singh

2001-05-28

K.S.JANJUA

body2001
ORDER K.S. Janjua, FC. - This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order (30.6.2000) passed by Addl. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar. 2. History of the case has been recorded in the order of Addl. Commissioner which may be read as a part of this order. 3. The counsel for the petitioner in his written arguments has submitted that the Addl. Commissioner and AC-1 Bholath have ignored the judgment of civil Court (17.9.1986) as well as the observations of FCT Punjab (11.1.1983) made in ROR No. 66/1992-93. AC-I, Kapurthala was directed to finalise the case keeping in view the civil Court judgment and possession of the parties. As per civil Court decree and Mode of Partition (MOP) the petitioners are entitled to khasra No. 37/1/2 and 37/10/2 in Block "A but AC-1 has failed to partition the land accordingly. The share of the petitioner in the land under litigation comes to 14Ks-15Ms and AC-1 has created four taks which are situated at considerable distance from each other. This is against MOP, whereas every co- sharer was to be given one tak only. The possession of the petitioners over the disputed land has been disturbed and major part of his improved land has been given to the respondents. Moreover, Amar Singh a co-sharer has wrongly sold specific area out of specific khasra Nos. to the respondents of which he was not an exclusive owner. The counsel urged that the impugned orders are not sustainable. Authorities below be directed to partition the land according to law or order of the Collector be upheld. 4. The counsel for the respondents in their written arguments pointed out that respondents No. 3 and 4 have sold their land in favour of Jagat Singh father of the petitioner and to Pritam Singh etc. as such they have no such grievances against the impugned order. The counsel for Resham Singh respondent No. 1 has submitted that Resham Singh purchased khasra No. 37/1/2(4-0) from Amar Singh on 14.12.1983 and he is in possession of the said land. MOP provides that possession of the parties be respected (clause No. 2). AC-I Bholath in his order (10.11.1998) has rightly alloted the purchased land to Resham Singh. In his order it has also been mentioned that the parties have no objection to give other piece of land except area in Rect. No. 37(6-2). MOP provides that possession of the parties be respected (clause No. 2). AC-I Bholath in his order (10.11.1998) has rightly alloted the purchased land to Resham Singh. In his order it has also been mentioned that the parties have no objection to give other piece of land except area in Rect. No. 37(6-2). Collector, Kapurthala has wrongly made changes in the area of respondent- Resham Singh. The partition effected by AC-1 Bholath is most equitable. Resham Singh has been given 3Ks-6Ms land out of Khasra No. 37//10/2 and 0-14Ms from banjar area out of khasra No. 31//4/1/2 thus the petitioner has no right to challenge the order of Addl. Commissioner as the same is legal as well as based on principal of equity and natural justice. The civil Court has no where said that land should be given as per Civil Court judgment. The counsel for respondent No. 2-Pritam Singh has pointed out that he purchased land 9Ks-8Ms bearing Khasra No. 63//17(8-0), 18//1(1-8) from Mohinder Singh and Harbhajan Singh, sons of Harnam Singh-Respondent No. 3 vide sales deed dated 16.12.1983. AC-1 has allotted these Khasra Nos to Pritam Singh which are in his possession till today and nobody has objected. After the decision of FCT, Punjab (11-1- 1993) the correction in the khasra girdawari from sauni 1980 to upto date have been done vide report No. 2253 and no change has been made by the Collector or AC-1. The counsel for the respondents have urged that order of the Collector is required to be set aside and the orders of the AC-1 regarding final partition and the order of the Addl. Commissioner be upheld. 5. I have considered the arguments, written arguments submitted by the parties and record of the case. I concluded that there is no justification for me to interfere in appeal. The detailed orders of the AC-1 and Addl. Commissioner (Appeals) reveal that first time AC-1, Kapurthala sanctioned the final partition of land in dispute on 30.10.1985 and then after proper examination AC-1 Bholath sanctioned the amended final partition according to MOP on 10.11.1998. I concluded that there is no justification for me to interfere in appeal. The detailed orders of the AC-1 and Addl. Commissioner (Appeals) reveal that first time AC-1, Kapurthala sanctioned the final partition of land in dispute on 30.10.1985 and then after proper examination AC-1 Bholath sanctioned the amended final partition according to MOP on 10.11.1998. The Collector, Kapurthala has unnecessary modified the order of AC-1 by changing the tak of respondent No. 1-Resham Singh whereas the final partition has been sanctioned keeping in view the possession of the parties intact as per clause-2 of MOP and jamabandi for the years 1979-80 whereby a red ink entry/note proved that Amar Singh-respondent No. 4 has transferred his share by Regd. Sale Deed to the petitioner as well as to the respondents and none has challenged the mutation based on this sale deed. No doubt the petitioner obtained injunction from the Civil Court on 17.9.1986 against his dispossession except in due course of law but this injunction only recognised his possession and did not confer any right for land in his favour. Keeping in view the history of the case I find that parties are delaying the case without any genuine reason. No solid grounds have been adduced to justify my negating the concurrent conclusion arrived at by AC-1 Bholath and Addl. Commissioner, Jalandhar. I see no reasons to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Announced. Appeal dismissed.