Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 545 (PNJ)

Kartar Singh v. Gurmukh Singh

2003-04-21

B.C.GUPTA

body2003
ORDER B.C. Gupta, FC. - This reference revision petition has been recommended by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was filed before him under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 31.1.1989 passed by the Collector (Additional Deputy Commissioner), Kapurthala. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner filed an application for partition of land measuring 41K-9M, on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1976-77, before the Assistant Collector 1st grade, Kapurthala, which was contested by the respondents and it was submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land and, therefore, the question of title was involved. The Assistant Collector 1st grade, vide his order dated 19.1.1988, held that the question of title was involved and until and unless, the question of title was decided by the competent court, the partition proceedings could not be continued. As such, he adjourned the proceedings sine die. The petitioner challenged the order of the Assistant Collector 1st grade, Kapurthala before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the revision petitioner vide his order dated 31.1.1989. Dis-satisfied with the order of the Collector, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar. The Commissioner recommended the case to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue for acceptance and remanding the case back to the Assistant Collector 1st grade, Kapurthala and directed the parties to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue on 10.6.1991. 3. The petitioner in this case was represented by Shri G.S. Nagra, Advocate, on 29.5.2000. An application dated 3.4.2000, filed by the counsel for the respondents was considered by my predecessor, in which it has been stated that the sole petitioner Kartar Singh had died since long and even his sons who were his legal representatives had died. It was contended that since there was no other legal representative, the revision petition could not be proceeded and stood abated and should be dismissed. The learned Financial Commissioner adjourned the case sine-die. Another application dated 9.1.2001 was filed by Shri R.C. Chauhan, Advocate, saying that the revision petition should be revived and fixed for hearing. The said application dated 9.1.2001 was allowed and the case was fixed for arguments by my predecessor as per order dated 7.5.2001. A notice was also sent to the counsel for the petitioner. However, Shri G.S. Nagra, Advocate, stated at bar on 2.7.2001 that he was no more the counsel in the case. The said application dated 9.1.2001 was allowed and the case was fixed for arguments by my predecessor as per order dated 7.5.2001. A notice was also sent to the counsel for the petitioner. However, Shri G.S. Nagra, Advocate, stated at bar on 2.7.2001 that he was no more the counsel in the case. The learned Financial Commissioner on 29.10.2001 ordered that munadi be done in the village that if any of the legal representatives of Kartar Singh wanted to contest the case, he should do so. On 27.2.2002, it was found that the proclamation had not been done in the village Ahia where the disputed land is situated and hence an order was made for fresh proclamation. The report of the proclamation was duly received but none was present on behalf of the petitioner. Since, it is a reference case, the learned counsel for the respondents was asked to give his arguments. Shri R.S. Chauhan, Advocate has submitted his written arguments. 4. It has been stated in the written arguments that reference should be consigned to the record room as the revision petition had become abated due to the death of the petitioner. A question of title is involved in this case and the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st grade duly confirmed by the Collector was based on correct appreciation of the facts on record. The Commissioner should not have referred the revision petition to this court on flimsy grounds. The respondents have become owners of the land as they have purchased the land and a question of title is involved in this case. 5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments led before me. The reference in this case was made by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division vide his order dated 2.4.1991 and it has been pending in this court since then. In the meantime, the petitioner died and none has been forward to substitute himself on behalf of the petitioner. It is necessary, however, that the said reference should be disposed of by passing an appropriate order. The file just cannot be consigned to the record room and the matter kept pending, the petition has to be decided one way or the other. It is necessary, however, that the said reference should be disposed of by passing an appropriate order. The file just cannot be consigned to the record room and the matter kept pending, the petition has to be decided one way or the other. The learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division has observed that the Assistant Collector 1st grade was required to properly adjudicate the question of title by hearing the parties and he should have decided whether he should proceed as a revenue court under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 or he should have allowed the civil court to use their jurisdiction. 6. In accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, there is an option given to a revenue officer to decide the question of title himself or to refer the matter to the civil court for adjudication of the same. The intention behind making this reference seems to be that the Assistant Collector 1st grade should have heard the parties and passed a detailed other whether the Assistant Collector 1st grade wanted to decide the question himself or wanted to refer the matter to the civil court. Since a considerable period has also elapsed eversince the reference was made, it shall be appropriate and in the interest of justice to refer the matter back to the Assistant Collector 1st grade with a direction that he should call all the concerned parties based on the entries in the revenue record and otherwise and then take a decision afresh whether the partition proceedings should proceed or not. The Assistant Collector 1st grade should also decide afresh whether the question of title was involved in the matter or not and if it was so, whether he wanted to proceed with deciding such question or refer the matter to the civil court. As per the version given by the respondents, they have become the owners as they had purchased the land. It is a settled principle that whosoever purchases the land, gets substituted in place of the original owner in the revenue record after the sanction of mutation of sale etc. A simple purchase of land does not imply that the question of title is created. It is a settled principle that whosoever purchases the land, gets substituted in place of the original owner in the revenue record after the sanction of mutation of sale etc. A simple purchase of land does not imply that the question of title is created. Based on the above discussion, the case is sent back to the Assistant Collector 1st grade with the direction that he should call the concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The respondents have been directed to appear before the Assistant Collector 1st grade, for further proceedings on 14.7.2003. Announced. Order accordingly.