Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1057 (PNJ)

Tejwant Singh v. Saran Kaur

2005-10-03

B.K.SRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER B.K. Srivastava, FC. - Smt. Sharan Kaur, respondent No. 1, resident of Jour Bagh, New Delhi applied for partition of land on 28.4.2004. Out of fifteen respondents, the present two petitioners namely Tejwant Singh and Rajwant Singh, through their General Power of Attorney, Major Gurnam objected to the maintainability of the partition application on the following grounds :- (i) Smt. Sharan Kaur, applicant did not specify her area and share and hence the partition application was vague. (ii) Every co-sharer is in possession of his/her respective share of land and there was no question of partition. (iii) Khasra Nos. 19//2/3(2-5), 9/2(3-12), 11/2(5-16) and 12(8-0) were in possession of the petitioners and it could not be subjected to partition. 2. The above objections were rejected and the Assistant Collector Grade-1, Mohali, decided to proceed with the partition vide his order dated 17.10.2000. No appeal was filed against this order. Naksha Ura was approved as there was no objection from any side. Mode of Partition was proposed by the Assistant Collector Grade-1 and as there was no objection, the same was approved on 20.2.2001 and Naksha Alra was accordingly called for from the Field Kanungo. On receipt of Naksha Be i.e. Aira, objections were invited. At this stage the petitioners filed objection dated 17.5.2001 vide which it was said that they had filed another partition application for another Khewat and requested that the same my be clubbed with the present case. Simultaneously, they also said that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 19//2/3, 9/2, 11/2 and 12, as mentioned in item No. (iii) of the above paragraph, be allotted to them as they had invested in this land. 3. The request for clubbing of the two partition applications was inappropriate at the final stage of partition when the opportunity afforded to the parties was meant to show whether the partition paper i.e. Naksha Be was as per the Mode of Partition or not. This request of clubbing should have been raised at the preliminary stage in the written statement to the partition application. In his written statement the petitioner opposed the partition altogether instead of making this request. It is also relevant to point out that partition of two or more Khewats can be clubbed when the parties are common. This request of clubbing should have been raised at the preliminary stage in the written statement to the partition application. In his written statement the petitioner opposed the partition altogether instead of making this request. It is also relevant to point out that partition of two or more Khewats can be clubbed when the parties are common. As evident from the Collectors order, the parties were different and the petitioners have not shown that parties were identical in both the Khewats. Assistant Collector Grade-1 rejected the above objections and approved Naksha Be vide his impugned order dated 3.7.2001 with the following observations :- (a) While the petitioners requested for allotment of the aforesaid Khasra numbers to them, they did not make any request at any stage of the partition proceeding for separating their khasra. (b) As the applicant was a co-sharer in the aforesaid khasra numbers, she was entitled to proportionate share out of these numbers. 4. The question of compensation for investment in the land should have been raised at the stage of Mode of Partition so that a provision to this effect could be made in the Mode of Partition if merit was found in such a claim. The Assistant Collector Grade-1, finalized the partition. Appeal and revision of the petitioners against the above order were rejected by the Collector, Mohali and Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division vide their respective orders dated 20.12.2001 and 24.2.2003. 5. After approval of Naksha Be and Jeem on 3.7.2001 Sanad Takseem was issued on 4.3.2002. Warrant of possession was issued on 19.4.2002. Parties were put into possession of their allotted kuras on 25.6.2003 by the Halqa Kanungo. Mutation No. 1647 of partition was sanctioned on 30.6.2003. Respondent No. 1 further sold her share on 4.9.2001 in favour of Dalprit Singh son of Kamal Mohan Singh. Mutation of further sale has also been sanctioned on 19.9.2003 vide mutation No. 1661. Now the order of partition stands reflected in the revenue record and the partition came to an end. No appeal/revision is competent against the final order of partition. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division has observed that the petitioner did not file any objection to the Mode of Partition before the Assistant Collector Grade-1 nor he filed appeal against the Mode of Partition. No appeal/revision is competent against the final order of partition. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division has observed that the petitioner did not file any objection to the Mode of Partition before the Assistant Collector Grade-1 nor he filed appeal against the Mode of Partition. The Commissioner has also observed that the petitioner was specifically asked by him to tell on the Naksha Irri the point of injustice meted out to him but his counsel failed to point out any case of injustice on this Naksha. Important point in adjudication is to examine aspects/points of injustice. The only aspect which remained to be seen in an appeal against partition order was whether the Kuras were made in conformity with the Mode of Partition. But the Commissioner gave the petitioners counsel the liberty to point out anything unjust in the order as per his perception which he failed to point out. I find that no irregularity has been committed by the lower Revenue Officers in deciding the case of partition. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.