Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 509 (PNJ)

Pal Singh v. Joginder Singh

2003-04-07

B.C.GUPTA

body2003
ORDER B.C. Gupta, FC. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 29.1.2003, vide which he accepted the appeal filed by the Respondents against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Phillaur dated 28.2.2001. 2. The brief facts are that respondent No. 1 filed 12 applications before the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1st grade, Phillaur for partition of land situated in village Pasla, tehsil Phillaur, district Jalandhar. The Assistant Collector 1st grade prepared the mode of partition on 18.2.1999 and the partition was sanctioned on 31.3.2000. The petitioners filed appeal before the Sub-divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Phillaur who, vide his order dated 28.2.2001, set-aside the order of the Assistant Collector 1st grade and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st grade for fresh decision. The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division who, vide impugned order, accepted the appeal, set-aside the order of the Collector, Phillaur and held that the service upon the respondents in the applications was deemed to be proper and sent the case to the Collector for disposal of the appeal on merits. 3. At the time of hearing before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there was an interlocutory order recorded on 25.8.2000 on the file of the Assistant Collector 1st grade and after that, no further order had been recorded. He pointed out my attention to the observations of the Collector in his order dated 28.2.2001, saying that the interlocutory other had not been properly recorded and there were cuttings in papers relating to munadi in the village. 4. Upon an examination of the material before me, it is observed that this case is pending litigation on a frivolous issue as to whether the service on the concerned parties was effected properly or not. The Collector has held that the interlocutory orders were not recorded properly and it was not clear whether the service was proper or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) further held that the service was proper and the parties have further come before this Court in this revision petition. 5. In the light of material on record, it is observed that the issue involved in the proceedings, is whether the service was properly effected on the parties or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) further held that the service was proper and the parties have further come before this Court in this revision petition. 5. In the light of material on record, it is observed that the issue involved in the proceedings, is whether the service was properly effected on the parties or not. It shall be in the fitness of things if the Assistant Collector 1st grade causes service to be made on all the parties once again and then takes a decision in the matter afresh after hearing all the parties. This step is necessary in order to remove apprehensions in the minds of every party that no injustice is being done to him on the point of service of summons etc. The case is, therefore, sent to the Assistant Collector 1st grade with the directions that he should call all the concerned parties before him afresh, hear them and then take a fresh decision in the matter. A copy of this order be sent to the Assistant Collector 1st grade for compliance. The petitioner parties have been directed to appear before the Tehsildar-cum- Assistant Collector 1st grade. Phillaur on 29.5.2003 for further proceedings. Announced. Order accordingly.