Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1104 (PNJ)

Chhajja Singh v. Charan Singh

2004-09-28

R.P.S.PAWAR

body2004
ORDER P.S. Pawar, F.C. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 22.8.2003 of Commissioner, Patiala, the order dated 21.1.2003 of Collector, Sub-Division, Ropar and as well as the order dated 21.5.2002 of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ropar under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 2. Facts of the petition in brief are that the respondent had filed an application for partition of his share out of the land in dispute. During the course of proceedings Naksha A was approved. Subsequently, mode of partition was also finalised in the presence of parties. When Naksha Y and Z were approved, the petitioner challenged that order before the Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 21.1.2003. The revision petition filed against that order was also dismissed by the Commissioner Appeals, Patiala on 22.8.2003. Hence the present revision petition. 3. Both the learned counsels have filed their arguments in writing and the same have been taken on record. 4. I have gone through the file and also arguments placed on record. The main emphasis of counsel for the petitioner is that the partition has not been made in accordance with procedure as prescribed in the Punjab Land Record Manual. This has resulted in denial of opportunity to file appeal and as well as to file objections against Naksha Bay. In this regard, he has referred to judgment of this Court in which it has been held that merely be preparing Naksha Bay and Sanad Taksim the partition proceedings did not become complete and therefore, the issuance of instrument of partition cannot result in denial of opportunity. 5. The learned counsel of the respondent has referred that the whole exercise of partition has become complete as instrument of partition has been issued on 27.6.2002. He has cited 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 739 (DB) where the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that after the instrument of partition has been prepared and partition proceedings become complete, the competent forum to challenge partition proceedings is the High Court. The present revision petition is without any basis as the petitioner has himself admitted that all actions have taken place in his presence. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The present revision petition is without any basis as the petitioner has himself admitted that all actions have taken place in his presence. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In this regard it will be relevant to refer to the operative portion of the order of the Collector dated 21.1.2003 which reads as under : (Vernacular matter omitted.) 7. Similarly the relevant operative para of the order of Commissioner, Appeals reads as follow : "I have heard the counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record carefully. The perusal of the file relating to the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade shows that Chhajja Singh had given his consent to the approval of Naksha X, Mode of Partition, Naksha Y & Z. In such a case, there is hardly anything left for this Court to interfere. Hence the revision petition is dismissed." 8. I have considered the above position and find that Collector has dismissed the appeal on the ground that since the instrument of partition has been issued and also incorporated in the jamabandi, he cannot interfere. The Commissioner has concurred with him and referred to the presence of the petitioner on all occasions and dismissed the petition. In my view, the only point which remains now to be observed is the completion of the laid down partition procedure. The petitioner in his statement has got recorded that the land where his house was built may be allotted to him. The lower Courts have categorically held that the land where his house has been constructed has been allotted to him. In addition his statement has been recorded on each occasion by the competent authority. Now when all actions have been finalised he has objected that he has not been given opportunity to file his objections and has sought protection behind the facade of ignorance when everything has occurred in his presence. With regard to the instrument of partition Section 121 clearly provides that when a partition becomes complete, the Revenue Officer shall cause an instrument of partition to be prepared and the date on which the partition is to take effect to be recorded therein. The term completion of partition specifies, that all actions prior to that have been finalised. The joint status of the parties comes to an end from the date of completion of partition proceedings. The term completion of partition specifies, that all actions prior to that have been finalised. The joint status of the parties comes to an end from the date of completion of partition proceedings. In this case not only the instrument of partition has been prepared, the same stands also incorporated in record of rights. The jurisdiction of the revenue Court has come to an end as the petitioner has failed has failed to challenge any proceeding, which have occurred before the competition of the partition exercise. In view of my above findings, I am unable to find any merit in this revision petition, which may call my interference with the impugned orders. The same are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.