Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1186 (PNJ)

Gurmukh Singh v. Paramjit Singh

2005-11-14

MUKUL JOSHI

body2005
ORDER Mukul Joshi, FC. - This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar dated 23.1.2003 vide which he dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the Collector dated 30.3.2001. Vide this order the Collector had set aside the order of the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade dated 31.5.2000 vide which the mode of partition had been framed in the partition proceedings pertaining to the land. The Collector had directed the mode of partition be reframed by mentioning, that the partition should be done according to the quality and value of the land. Both the parties should be given front portion in equal shares after visiting the spot. The details of the case are contained in the orders of revenue Courts below and need not be gone into again. 2. On 12.4.2005 case came up for hearing and the counsels for both the parties were directed to file written arguments. Written arguments have been received. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been argued that the mode of partition was determined by the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade after carefully going through the revenue record as well as visiting the spot. The mode of partition envisaged that the possession of the partition should be kept in view at the time of partition. However, the Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and directed that the land should be distributed on the basis of quality and value of the land and the respondents should be given land around the main road. It was urged that the lower level revenue officers ignored the fact that an earlier private partition had taken place between the parties. The respondents Shri Paramjit Singh and Resham Singh had purchased specific khasra Nos. of the land from the original co-owners. The land in possession of the petitioners has been improved and developed by them. At this stage the respondents have no right to claim any part of the land by way of partition proceedings. It was urged that the order of the Commissioner and the Assistant Collector should be set aside. 4. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that the Commissioner and the Collector had rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade on the sound principle that the land should be distributed to the co-sharers in accordance with its quality and value. 4. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that the Commissioner and the Collector had rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade on the sound principle that the land should be distributed to the co-sharers in accordance with its quality and value. As regard the issue of title there was no such issue in this case. The private partition if any, should have been recorded in the revenue papers, which was not done. The Commissioner has rightly observed that no preliminary objections in respect of title have been raised by the petitioners before the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade and therefore these could not be raised at the stage of finilization of mode of partition. It was further argued that in accordance with order dated 30.3.2001 the Assistant Collector had visited the spot and reframed the mode of partition vide order dated 25.3.2003, against which an appeal filed by the petitioners was pending before the Collector. In view of this the present revision was therefore infructuous. It was urged that the revision petition should be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the file and the arguments putforth by the counsels for the parties. I am in agreement with the counsel for the respondents that there is no cause for revision of the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division. The principle accepted by both the Collector and the Commissioner, that the value and quality should to be taken into account at the time of partition, and that possession alone cannot be the basis of partition is a sound one. In the present case there is a big difference in value in different parts, and both parties are entitled to a share in both types of land. As regard the issue of title I would agree with the Commissioner that this has been raised at a late stage. It should have been raised as a preliminary issue before the Assistant Collector. 6. In view of the above I find no merits in the revision petition. The revision is dismissed. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.