Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 215 (PNJ)

Joginder Pal v. Narinder Kumar

2005-02-07

A.K.DUBEY

body2005
JUDGMENT A.K. Dubey, F.C. - This review petition under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with a prayer to review the order dated 31.3.1994 passed by Sh. J.S. Kesar, IAS, the then Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab accepting the revision petition No. 106 of 2004 and setting aside the order dated 28.1.2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and remanding the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Balachaur with the direction that the partition be done as per the amended Mode of Partition, which already stands sanctioned. 2. The review petitioner has contended that the observation of the learned Financial Commissioner that "on the facts given and agreed to by both the parties" is totally wrong as no point of time any consent was shown or applicants-respondents were ever agreed, rather it was submitted that the petitioners as well as the applicants-respondents have been given the frontage according to their share and clause stipulated in the mode of partition because frontage was to be given keeping in view the structure and commercial area in possession of the petitioners. Since the entire area is commercial area and structure on the area of brick kiln was given to the petitioners, therefore, according to that the frontage was given to the petitioners. It is also worth submitting here with the share of the petitioners comes to 52 kanal 1 marla and thus, keeping in view the commercial area and structure given to the petitioners, the frontage of 54 karams was given to the petitioners and similarly, share of the respondents-applicants comes to 1/2 share and according to that the applicants were given 114 karams. It was also specifically brought to the notice of the then learned Financial Commissioner that as far as claim of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 is concerned, since they were in possession of the area and structure, therefore, their possession was already upheld as there was a civil litigation between the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 7 and thus, keeping in view their holding and share the frontage was given. Thus, there was no deficiency in frontage. 3. 3 to 7 is concerned, since they were in possession of the area and structure, therefore, their possession was already upheld as there was a civil litigation between the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 7 and thus, keeping in view their holding and share the frontage was given. Thus, there was no deficiency in frontage. 3. The review petitioner has further contended that further the then learned Financial Commissioner committed an error in recording that "this fact has not been controverted by the respondents that entire Barani land has been given to the petitioners", whereas, factual position is entirely different because the respondents-applicants specifically urged before the learned Financial Commissioner and brought to his notice that the entire land is not Barani as the land which has been allotted to the petitioners is a commercial area and, therefore, was of much superior quality and moreover, as per the revenue record up till date the nature of land is recorded as "Chahi". The relevant revenue record to that effect was also produced on record, but despite that the learned Financial Commissioner committed an error while recording such findings as afore-noticed. Therefore, the then learned Financial Commissioner committed an error while passing an order which is wholly based on assumptions and not on the facts, arguments and contentions pleaded by the parties during the course of arguments and thus, erroneously remanded the matter for passing an order as per amended mode of partition, which is totally erroneous and against the records. 4. The review petitioner further contended that once the mode of partition dated 26.8.1996 was accepted and partition proceedings were finalized in pursuance to the orders passed by this Honble Court whereby revision petition was accepted not once but twice and no appeal was filed against the mode of partition and further at no point of time the factum of amended mode of partition was brought to the affected parties, in that eventuality the amended mode of partition, if any, loses its significance. Moreover, there were no orders passed by any competent authority for framing a new mode of partition. Thus, it was specifically submitted that the alleged amended mode of partition is having no bearing on the case as the mode of partition was framed way back on 26.8.1996 which has attained finality. Moreover, there were no orders passed by any competent authority for framing a new mode of partition. Thus, it was specifically submitted that the alleged amended mode of partition is having no bearing on the case as the mode of partition was framed way back on 26.8.1996 which has attained finality. Thus, remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector for deciding the same afresh vide order under review, tantamount to reopening the entire matter which stands already decided up to this Honble Court after dealing with the objections raised by petitioners, but the learned Financial Commissioner nowhere recorded even an iota of word in respect of the arguments and contentions raised by the applicant- respondents and rather set up a totally new case altogether, which is not warranted in the eyes of law. 5. Both the parties were heard through their counsels. The learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that the learned Financial Commissioner has wrongly referred to amended mode of partition, that both the Commissioner and Collector had dismissed the contentions of the review petitioners and the Financial Commissioner has wrongly ordered de novo initiation of proceedings. He reiterated that the learned Financial Commissioner has erred in giving finding and accepting the revision petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents in the present review petition (Review Petitioners in R.O.R. No. 106 of 2004) contended that review is possible only if there are clerical and arithmetic mistakes in the order, that the matter has been remanded to the A.C. 1st Grade by the order of the learned Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab and further proceedings have been initiated, that the only remedy left for the review petitioner is filing a writ petition in the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court and in the present case review does not lie. He referred to 2000 RCR Page 705, D.B. Singh v. Varinder Singh stating that the scope of review is very limited. He also referred to AIR 1980 SC 2040 and stated that review is not a routine procedure and does not permissible to hear the case on merits. Thus, he emphasized that it is not a fit case for invoking the review and the matter has already been settled by the order of the learned Commissioner, Cooperation. 7. He also referred to AIR 1980 SC 2040 and stated that review is not a routine procedure and does not permissible to hear the case on merits. Thus, he emphasized that it is not a fit case for invoking the review and the matter has already been settled by the order of the learned Commissioner, Cooperation. 7. I have gone through the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the available record and the order of the learned Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab dated 31.3.2004 and after hearing the contentions of both the parties, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent (original revision petitioner) that the order of the learned Financial Commissioner Cooperation does not call for any review and the proper remedy for the review petitioner is before the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Accordingly, the review petition does not merit any consideration and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.