Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 895 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh v. Mohinder Singh

2002-09-09

P.RAM

body2002
ORDER P. Ram, F.C. - This is a revision petition against the order of Shri S.C. Srivastava, IAS, Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot dated 12.10.2001 vide which he set aside the order of the Collector, Sub Division, Mansa dated 29.2.2000 vide which he had accepted an appeal against the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa in a partition case. 2. The brief facts are as under :- Mohinder Singh son of Nand Singh son of Nathu Singh and Chhinder Singh moved an application dated 26.4.1993 for partition of land measuring 105 Kanal 2 marlas situated in Village Bhikhi, Tehsil Mansa on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1998-99. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa vide his order dated 30.9.99 after rejecting the objections raised by respondent No. 1, Mohinder Singh approved Naqsha Bay and Naqsha Zeem was ordered by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa which was challenged in appeal before the Collector Sub Division, Mansa who concluded that Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa acted against the mode of partition and set aside the order and remanded the case for afresh decision, keeping in view the mode of partition. Against this order, Mohinder Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The main issue that is being agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa had not passed a detailed order overruling the objections raised by the petitioner, whereas he had specifically alleged that out of Khasra No. 139//22 which was in his complete possession, he was allotted only 4 Kanal 18 Marlas. Similarly 148//7/1(4-3), 6/3/2(0-18) which were not in his possession have been allotted wrongly to him and that out of 102//24/1(2-15), 25/1(4-18) total 7 Kanal 1 Marla had been given to him whereas he had his share on 11 Kanal 1 Kanal 1 Marla. The counsel has further argued that though these facts had only been recorded by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in his order has failed to give any justification for overruling these objections. 4. The counsel has further argued that though these facts had only been recorded by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in his order has failed to give any justification for overruling these objections. 4. The counsel for respondents has argued that Joginder Singh had filed an appeal before the Commissioner against the order of Collector, Mansa on 24.11.1997, which was rejected by Commissioner and in this order, the Collector Sub Division, Mansa had directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa to finalise the Naqsha Bay after redressing the objections of the parties and that in due compliance of the order of the Collector, Naqsha Bay was approved by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa on 6.1.1997 and that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa vide his order dated 30.9.1999 approved the Naqsha Bay in the light of the orders of the Collector, after taking into consideration of the objections of the petitioner and even though the order of the Collector, Mansa had been fully complied with by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the Collector still entertained the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa. Learned counsel has further argued that there were two chunks of land of superior and inferior quality and had to be distributed in the ratio of share of the parties and that petitioner was only insisting on taking land from superior chunk which was under his possession and was not ready to take land from the other khewat which was inferior and out of which only due was allotted to him. The learned counsel has also shown me the Naqsha Bay approved by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa and tried to justify the partition. However, a perusal of the orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa makes one thing clear that in the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa dated 30.9.1999 the objections of the petitioner have been recorded in detail but the order does not give any reasoning for overruling the objections and it is this deficiency which has been pointed out by the Collector. The order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa definite is non-spearing one and deserves to be set aside. The order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa definite is non-spearing one and deserves to be set aside. In the light of above, I accept this revision petition in limine and set aside the order of the Commissioner and uphold the order of the Collector vide which Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa has been redirected to decide the Naqsha Bay afresh in accordance with the mode of partition as well as give detailed reasons for overruling the objections of the petitioner. Parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mansa on 9.10.2002. Announced. Revision allowed.