Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 691 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh v. Gurmit Singh

2001-07-16

K.S.JANJUA

body2001
ORDER K. S. Janjua, F. C. - Brief facts of these cases filed under Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act are that Gurmit Singh moved an application for partition before AC-I, Jalandhar. AC-I finally decided the partition but one of the parties went in appeal before Collector Jalandhar-II against both MOP and final partition order. The Collector remanded the case back to AC-I after accepting the appeal. Order of Collector was challenged before Commissioner who set it aside. Then three revisions were preferred before F. C. Cooperation by the respondent. These revisions were accepted (1.3.1999) and cases remanded to AC-I for framing fresh MOP after visiting spot and to decide the partition case within 3 months. AC-I then started the fresh proceedings and framed MOP (3.11.1999). 2. Order of AC-I was assailed by the respondent before Collector pleading that parties are having land in three villages i.e. Sikanderpur, Lesriwal and Dhogri. The respondent is in possession of about 19-20 acres of land in village Sikanderpur whereas Nirmal Singh is in possession of land measuring 22-24 acres in village Dhogri. It was argued that respondent clearly stated before AC-I that possession must be respected and entire partition case be decided by taking it as one unit. Another plea taken was that Nirmal Singh- petitioner has already got compensation of 2 acres of land in village Dhogri acquired by Govt. He prayed for setting asaid order of AC-I. Appeal was dismissed by the Collector (29.2.2000) being without force. Revision was then preferred before Commissioner who accepted the revision and set aside the order of Collector. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties, seen the record and proceedings in this case. The case to my mind is very simple and main issue is whether the land situated in different villages is of different quality or not. If the land is of the same quality then possession should be respected. If there is a significant variation in the quality of land then it should be apportioned equally between the claimants in the partition case. It appears that AC-I is holding that the land near the road is of more value and therefore he is perhaps proposing to divide all the Kurrahs amongst the contestant parties equally. Collectors order mainly stresses on the land along the link road which he says should be apportioned equally. It appears that AC-I is holding that the land near the road is of more value and therefore he is perhaps proposing to divide all the Kurrahs amongst the contestant parties equally. Collectors order mainly stresses on the land along the link road which he says should be apportioned equally. He has rejected the appeal on basically this ground. 4. Commissioner in revision has held that so called link road is neither a National Highway nor a State Highway but this is a link road between village Lesriwal and Dhogri. He also held this is not especially a valuable piece of land. Commissioner is also of the view that if the land is apportioned equally in different Kurrahs this will result unnecessary fragmentation of the holdings, will further result in making impossible the use of the land for optimum agricultural purpose. In the arguments before me the counsel for the parties mainly stressed about the division of the land along the road. I am not inclined to agree with this view. During my posting in the area I have seen this road. There is nothing special about it and it is just an ordinary village road. All the pieces of land are of nearly the same value. After due deliberation I am inclined to set aside the order of the Commissioner partially while agreeing that the land is of uniform quality. He has not given any relief and has failed to modify MOP. AC-Is order regarding MOP also requires amendment. Therefore, I modify the order of AC-I, set aside the order of Collector and Commissioner (as he failed to pass any speaking order regarding MOP). 5. As a consequence it is hereby ordered that MOP will be as under :- (1) Total area of land is 124K 17M. This will be divided equally between the parties. (2) The land is of the same quality. There is no need of intensive fragmentation. All land is to be treated as one piece. (3) Possession will be respected/maintained. Possession can be disturbed only if the area under the possession of the parties is not equally distributed. If minor adjustments are to be made then only possession should be disturbed and it should be kept at absolute minimum. (4) Water channel and Path will be allowed as per need. (5) Trees shall go with the land. Possession can be disturbed only if the area under the possession of the parties is not equally distributed. If minor adjustments are to be made then only possession should be disturbed and it should be kept at absolute minimum. (4) Water channel and Path will be allowed as per need. (5) Trees shall go with the land. (6) If any party has alienated/mortgaged any area of the land the same shall be taken out of the allotment/share of that party. (7) Principle of consolidation shall prevail as all land is of the same quality. (8) Tubewell, Building etc. will be given to the person who has constructed/raised them. 6. All further proceedings by AC-I in this case will be made as per above ordered MOP. AC-I will strictly adhere to MOP. The above MOP will also apply in case of villages Lesriwal and Dhogri. Announced. Ordered accordingly.