Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 187 (PNJ)

Baljit Singh v. Sant Singh

2002-02-11

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy, FC. - This is a petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seeking to revise the order dated 13.6.2001 of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, the order dated 31.10.2000 of the Collector, Dera Baba Nanak, and the order dated 15.5.200 of the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dera Baba Nanak, in proceedings for partition of land belonging to 4 brothers, Sant Singh (respondent No. 1), Ajit Singh (respondent No. 2), Bua Singh (though LRs - petitioner), and Bawa Singh (through LR-respondent No. 3). 2. Respondent No. 1 applied on 12.3.1984 for partition of the land measuring 399 K 13 comprised in Khewat Nos. 28, 60, 61, 62, Khatauni Nos. 57, 133, 139, 140, 141/1, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 497, as entered in the jamabandi for 1979-80, situated in the revenue estate of Shampur, H.B. No. 487, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. Clause 2 of the Mode of Partition framed on 3.4.1986 read as under :- The partition will be effected keeping in view the possession as per kind of land and principles of consolidation. 3. Naksha "Jeem was approved on 22.2.1989. The Collector Batala vide order dated 23.10.1989 dismissed 2 separate appeals against Naksha "Jeem filed by respondents no and 3. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide order dated 7.12.1991 recommended for acceptance to the Financial Commissioner the revision petitions against those orders. The Financial Commissioner Animal Husbandry vide order dated 8.9.1994 remanded the case with the direction that the mode of partition should be evolved de novo, so that each co-sharer gets land of the same value/utility, while respecting possession as far as possible, and the basic principles of consolidation of holdings. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 filed identical review applications which were dismissed by the Financial Commissioner Relief and Resettlement vide order dated 5.12.1996. They then filed CWP No. 5249 of 1997. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 20.9.1999 noted that the contesting respondent (present respondent No. 1) had no objection if the old Mode of Partition was retained, and disposed of the petition as not pressed with the express understanding that the parties would be bound by the old Mode of Partition. 4. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade called for a fresh Naksha "Jeem. Objections were raised by all parties other than respondent No. 1. 4. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade called for a fresh Naksha "Jeem. Objections were raised by all parties other than respondent No. 1. On spot visit by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 24.4.2000, all the parties agreed that the land beyond the Saki Nullah is of poor quality and flood- affected. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade held that Naksha "Jeem had not been prepared by the field staff in accordance with the Mode of Partition. Fresh naksha "Jeem was prepared under his direction. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade partitioned the land vide order dated 15.5.2000 as in the Naksha "Jeem except for interchange of a few fields between respondents No. 2 and 3. 5. The petitioners and respondent No. 3 filed a joint appeal against the order dated 15.5.2000 on the grounds that : (i) Opportunity to raise objections to Naksha "Jeem was not afforded; (ii) Mode of partition has been violated inasmuch as * Possession had been disturbed * Principles of consolidation of holdings have been flouted; (iii) To access the new holdings, additional paths have been provided which is a wastage of good agricultural land. The Collector, Dera Baba Nanak dismissed the appeals, and the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, dismissed the revision petitions, against the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, primarily on the grounds. (a) objections to the Naksha "Jeem had been raised by the parties on 16.2.2000 and 23.2.2000. These had been duly considered by Assistant Collector Ist Grade. New objections cannot be raised in appeal and/or revision; (b) the objections appear to have a vested interest in prolonging the litigation. Hence the present petitions. 6. It is pertinent to note that on consideration of the objections raised on 16.2.2000 and 23.2.2000, the Assistant Collector had rejected the Naksha "Jeem and ordered its preparation afresh. The new Naksha "Jeem was prepared on 11.5.2000. The Assistant Collector discussed it with the parties, severally and then jointly on 12.5.2000, and ordered the partition on 15.5.2000. There is no record of discussion. It cannot therefore be held that the petitioners are raising new objections at the stage of appeal and revision. Secondly, all the parties (barring respondent No. 2) have resorted to litigation to protect their perceived rights, leading to the delay of about 18 years in partitioning the land. 7. There is no record of discussion. It cannot therefore be held that the petitioners are raising new objections at the stage of appeal and revision. Secondly, all the parties (barring respondent No. 2) have resorted to litigation to protect their perceived rights, leading to the delay of about 18 years in partitioning the land. 7. On merits, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has substantially disturbed existing possession in the interest of giving each shareholder a compact block(s). No doubt deficit in existing holdings is to be made good. However, by and large the land in possession of the parties in deficit is of superior quality, and also is located near the abadi. It would be only fair to make good their deficit from the poor quality land, keeping in view access thereto, even if the principles of consolidation are followed less strictly. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has already noted that the pocket beyond the Saki Nullah is of poor quality. Judging from the jamabandi entries, some parts of the block comprised in rectangles 8, 9, 10 and 11 adjoining the drain, are susceptible to flooding, if not of equally poor quality. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 4.3.2002. He should call for a new naksha "Jeem and invite objections thereto. No specifics have been given in the preceding para so that he may decide the matter afresh with an open mind. To be communicated. Petition accepted.