Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1604 (PNJ)

Krishanjeet Kaur v. Jasdeep Singh

2003-11-28

R.P.S.PAWAR

body2003
ORDER R.P.S. Pawar, FC. - Brief facts of this Revision Petition are that the partition application filed by Sh. Jasdeep Singh son of Baljit Singh son of Sh. Jagjit Singh was dismissed by A.C. Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Bathinda with the observation that a Civil Suit with regard to question of title was pending between the parties in a Judicial Court. This order was challenged in Appeal before the Collector, Bathinda, who upheld the findings of A.C. Ist Grade with the observation that the partition can take only place after the decision of the civil suit relating to question of the title between the parties. This order was challenged in Revision Petition before the Division Commissioner, Faridkot who after examination the facts of the case held that as there as no stay from the Civil Court, there was no need to delay the partition exercise. He accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of A.C. Ist Grade and the Collector and remanded the case to Tehsildar exercising the powers of A.C. Ist Grade, Bathinda for deciding the partition application on merit after hearing both the parties. Hence the Revision Petition. 2-3. Both the parties have argued their case and also submitted their arguments in writing. I have also perused the file. The primary point involved for decision is that during pendency of the civil suit whether the partition can continued. It, however, transpires that neither the A.C. Ist Grade nor the Collector have recorded their findings regarding the title of the nature of the Civil Suit pending among the parties. The Divisional Commissioner has thoroughly considered the issues involved and has concluded that there was no involvement of question of title and moreover, there was no stay from any competent court of jurisdiction. He accepted the Revision and remand it to A.C. Ist Grade for deciding the same afresh. The relevant portion of his order reads as follows :- "I have gone through the relevant record and given minute consideration to the averments put-forth by the Learned Counsel for both the parties. The perusal of record reveals that the lower courts have relied upon the matter pending in the Civil Court. But there is no such restriction conveyed to the Revenue Officers debarring them to drop proceeding on the partition application moved by the petitioner. Moreover, the findings of the Civil Court are always binding on the Revenue Courts. The perusal of record reveals that the lower courts have relied upon the matter pending in the Civil Court. But there is no such restriction conveyed to the Revenue Officers debarring them to drop proceeding on the partition application moved by the petitioner. Moreover, the findings of the Civil Court are always binding on the Revenue Courts. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the partition application moved by the petitioner has rightly been filed, is patently wrong and contrary to the provisions contained in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Further, it has been gathered from the court file of the court of A.C. Ist Grade, Bathinda that the prayer of the petitioner that his share be separated from the total land situated in village Jodhpur Romana, Tehsil and District Bathinda on the basis of Jamabandi for the year 1996-97. Therefore, the right course for the Revenue Officer is to proceed in the matter in the interest of fair justice on the basis of revenue record subject to outcome of matter pending in the Civil Court. There being no stay from the court of competent jurisdiction, restraining the Revenue Officer-cum-Assistant Collector, Ist Grade from proceeding and deciding the partition application, I find substance in the present revision petition and remand the same to the A.C. Ist Grade (Tehsildar), Bathinda for deciding the partition application moved by the petitioner on merit after hearing the parties. 4. The petitioner, therefore, has not been able to pin point any meritable consideration, which has not been discussed by the Divisional Commissioner. There is neither any reference to the nature of civil suit nor any specific order of the Civil Court staying the proceedings of the partition. The petitioner has thus failed to establish that question of title is involved and is yet to be decided. It is a well established fact that the partition proceedings are time bound and have to be decided expeditiously. Any purposeless delay will defeat the objective for which partition procedure has been laid down. In view of my above discussion, I find no merit in the revision petition, which could call for my interference. Accordingly, the order of the Divisional Commissioner is upheld and the Revision Petition is dismissed. To be communicated and recorded. Petition dismissed.