Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 410 (PNJ)

Jaswant Singh v. Ajit Singh

2002-04-15

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy, F.C. - This is a petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, seeking to revise the order dated 4.6.1999 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, the order dated 18.2.1997 of the Collector, Gurdaspur, and the order dated 8.12.1994 of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur, in proceedings for partition of land measuring 34K 9M situated in the revenue estate of Butterkalan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 2. The petitioners had challenged the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on the grounds that : (a) a question of title is involved, (b) they were not afforded due opportunity to present their case, (c) Naksha Jeem is contrary to the Mode of Partition inasmuch as their possession over 43//1/2(4-0) has been disturbed. The Collector and the Commissioner rejected (c) because the Mode of Partition contains a clause that possession can be disturbed. Hence this petition. 3. The clause in the Mode of Partition is that possession shall be disturbed as little as possible. The total land to be partitioned is 34K 9M. As per Naksha Alf, the Mushtarka land is 0K 9M. The share of respondents No. 1 to 3 is 17K 4M. They were already in possession of 17K 2M. Only deficit of 0K 2M was to be made good. The other co-owner, Buta, had sold 12K 18M to respondent No. 4, and 4K 0M to the petitioners. 4. The Civil Court decided the dispute regarding 4K 0M in favour of the petitioners. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the District Judge. RSA No. 546 of 1997 was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.1997 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the suit was for permanent injunction and not regarding title. It looks as though respondents No. 1 to 3 having lost the battle up to the High Court have regained possession of the disputed 4K 0M through partition proceedings. 5. The revision petition was filed before the Commissioner on 21.5.1997. No stay was granted. Stay was granted by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I on 30.9.1999. Respondents No. 1 to 3 claim : (a) they were put in possession of their share as per the partition, including the disputed 4K 0M, by the Field Kanungo on 6.5.1997 vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 426, (b) mutation No. 3944 reflecting the partition was sanctioned vide order dated 20.8.1997. Stay was granted by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I on 30.9.1999. Respondents No. 1 to 3 claim : (a) they were put in possession of their share as per the partition, including the disputed 4K 0M, by the Field Kanungo on 6.5.1997 vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 426, (b) mutation No. 3944 reflecting the partition was sanctioned vide order dated 20.8.1997. Respondents No. 1 to 3 did not claim that the stay granted by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I had become infructuous until now. There is no Sanad Takseem on the file of the Assistant Collector. It must therefore be held that the partition has not been implemented. 6. Accordingly, the petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector for partitioning the land so that possession is disturbed as little as possible. The parties are directed to appear before him on 15.5.2002. To be communicated. Petition allowed.