ORDER Naresh Gulati, F.C. — This revision petition has been filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 12.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners and the respondents are the proprietors of Village Mohiyudinpur Thirana, District Panipat. At the time of consolidation of holdings in the village, pro rata cut was imposed upon the proprietors and a separate pool of land was created for the common purposes of the entire village community. The petitioners and the other proprietors of the village contributed to the common pool of land of the village. After satisfactory utilization of land for common purposes, land measuring 470 kanals situated in the revenue estate remained unutilized and in the ownership and possession of the proprietors of the village as Mastarka Malkan and Jumla Malkan Hasab Rasad Raqba. The petitioners and the respondents moved an application for partition before Assistant Collector Grade-II Panipat. The Assistant Collector initiated the proceedings for partition of the land in dispute and when the proceedings had reached the stage of preparing naksha ‘bey’ five persons namely Bhartu, Sardana, Smt. Shamdei, Siri Chand and Mahabir Singh, all residents of Village Madlauda moved an application before the Assistant Collector for being impleaded as respondents in the partition application and for permission to contest the same from the initiation of the partition proceedings. The Assistant Collector partly allowed the said application and permitted them to join proceedings from the stage of naksha ‘be’ but declined from the stage of commencement of the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid applicants filed an appeal before the Collector who dismissed the same and upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector. The aforesaid applicants thereafter filed a revision petition against the order of Assistant Collector and Collector before the Commissioner Rohtak Division who made a reference to the Financial Commissioner on 13.8.1991 for recommending to the Assistant Collector for starting de novo partition proceedings. The then Financial Commissioner rejected the reference and declined to interfere with the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector. Only Bhartu out of the above five applicants filed a civil writ petition in the High Court for quashing the orders passed by Assistant Collector, Collector and Financial Commissioner. The then Financial Commissioner rejected the reference and declined to interfere with the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector. Only Bhartu out of the above five applicants filed a civil writ petition in the High Court for quashing the orders passed by Assistant Collector, Collector and Financial Commissioner. The Division Bench of High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine vide order dated 26.9.1994 holding that the share of the petitioner did not exceed 14 marla and the partition proceedings were at a final stage. After the High Court order the Assistant Collector restored the partition application and allowed the same passing the final order dated 7.8.1997. Bhartu challenged the partition proceedings before the Collector, Panipat. The Collector dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 29.9.1998. The other respondents challenged the Collector’s order before the Commissioner Rohtak Division. The Commissioner adjourned the partition proceedings sine dine vide his order dated 27.2,2001 holding that the land in dispute has been mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat in view of the amendment made in the Act of 1961 vide Act No.9 of 1992 and that the judgment of High Court dated 18.1.1995 has been set aside by the Supreme Court and the case was remanded for fresh decision. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.8.2001. The petitioners filed a CWP No. 18136 of 2001 for quashing order dated 27.2.2001 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 13.8.2001 passed by the Financial Commissioner, which was disposed of by a Division Bench vide order dated 18.8.2003 in terms of order dated 13.3.2003 passed by the Full Bench in Jai Singh’s case. Thereafter the petitioners moved an application before the Commissioner on 7.10.2003 for restoration of their revision petition allowed for deciding the same in accordance with law. The Commissioner Rohtak Division restored the revision petition and decided the same vide order dated 12.5.2005 by remanding the case to Assistant Collector Grade-I Panipat for deciding afresh. The petitioners have come before me against the said order. 3. The Counsel for petitioners argued that the final order of partition dated 7.8.1997 was accepted by all the 95 co-sharers. The Commissioner Rohtak Division restored the revision petition and decided the same vide order dated 12.5.2005 by remanding the case to Assistant Collector Grade-I Panipat for deciding afresh. The petitioners have come before me against the said order. 3. The Counsel for petitioners argued that the final order of partition dated 7.8.1997 was accepted by all the 95 co-sharers. Only Bhartu filed an appeal against it before the Collector, who dismissed the same vide order dated 29.9.1998 and Bhartu also accepted this order and did not challenge the same and thus the process of partition was finalized. The respondents had no locus­standi to file a revision against the order of Collector dated 29.9.1998 before the Commissioner. The Counsel for petitioner submitted the citation 1994 PLJ page 9 ‘Som Parkash (deceased) through his son vs the State of Haryana and others’. The order dated 12.5.2005 is liable to be set aside as the revision is not maintainable because the respondents were not aggrieved by the Collector’s order dated 29.9.1998. As the order of partition dated 7.8.1997 was final and the instrument of partition was prepared so it cannot be challenged before the revenue authority. Once the possession has been delivered to erstwhile co-sharers as per instrument of partition, the aggrieved party can approach only the Civil Court for redressal of any grievance and no appeal or revision would be competent. The Counsel submitted the citation 1998(2) PLJ 496 Sharam Singh vs Gurjit Singh and others. It was also pleaded that the observations made by the Commissioner in the para 4 of impugned order dated 12.5.2005 are all misconceived and irrelevant. The partition application was filed by all the proprietors of the village who had contributed to the common pool by way of pro-rata cuts and there was no question of impleading any more proprietors as party to the partition proceedings. The Gram ­Panchayat ilas absolutely no concern with the land in dispute which is bachat land and not reserved for common purposes and does not vest in Gram Panchayat. Besides this Gram Panchayat had not raised any claim. 4. The Counsel for respondents argued that the order dated 12.5.2005 of the Commissioner Rohtak Division are in view of the judgment passed by the full bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5877 of 1992 titled as Jai Singh vs State of Haryana [2003(1) PLJ 429 (F.B.)]. Besides this Gram Panchayat had not raised any claim. 4. The Counsel for respondents argued that the order dated 12.5.2005 of the Commissioner Rohtak Division are in view of the judgment passed by the full bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 5877 of 1992 titled as Jai Singh vs State of Haryana [2003(1) PLJ 429 (F.B.)]. Prior to this the Commissioner has ordered to maintain status quo and by holding that the Amendment Act No.9 of 1992 in Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 shall hold fill a decision to the contrary is given by any Court of Law. The Full Bench has now decided the case vide judgment dated 13.3.2003 and upheld the vires of Amendment Act No.9 of 1992. The conclusions of the judgment dated 13.3.2003 are in para 63 page 454-455. It has also been stated that the present case was filed for partition of the bachat land amongst the proprietors. The land has been described as Mastarka Malkan and Jumla Malkan Hasab Rasad Raqba and the application for partition was instituted on 12.5.1988 before the Assistant Collector Grade-I. The contention of the petitioner that the mode of partition was finalized and naksha ‘bey’ was prepared has no relevance after the amendment of the Act vide Act No.9 of 1992. It is the respectful submission that after this amendment, the vires of which have been upheld by the High Court, the entire common lands have to be demarcated afresh and the proceedings have to be initiated afresh and thus the orders of the Commissioner are in consonance with the judgment of High Court in Jai Singh’s case and no interference is called for. The present petitioners have argued at length that the respondents have no locus standi to file the revision before the Commissioner is absolutely wrong. The present petitioners have argued at length that the respondents have no locus standi to file the revision before the Commissioner is absolutely wrong. In fact the respondents filed a revision against the orders dated 20.9.1998 of the Collector Panipat as the present respondents are legal heirs of deceased Tek Chand who died much prior to the filing of the partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector Grade-I Panipat and this fact was well within the knowledge of the present petitioners but acting in a mala fide manner, the name of the deceased Tek Chand was intentionally mentioned in the partition proceedings and he was naturally not served with the notice and the present respondents were not substituted as LRs of deceased Tek Chand. The partition proceedings were conducted at the back of the respondents and waste land has been allotted to them. The partition proceedings are null and void and not binding on the rights of the respondents. The application moved by the present respondents for making them as a party was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 21.8.1998 from that stage only. This action on the part of Collector is wrong because the respondents were never served and their predecessor Tek Chand (deceased) was made a respondent in the partition proceedings and the whole proceedings are liable to be decided afresh as has rightly been ordered by the Commissioner Rohtak Division. The total land of the Khewat is about 1200 kanals but the application for partition was filed merely for 470 kanaIs. The Assistant Collector Grade-I has kept reserved another 89 kanals of land and in respect of rest of the land the partition proceedings were initiated. Now in view of the judgment of full bench the bachat land is also liable to be demarcated afresh and Gram Panchayat is also a necessary party. 5. I have heard both the Counsels and gone through the record of the case. Partition proceedings were completed and final order of partition was passed on 27.11.1997 by the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Panipat. Only Bhartu challenged this order which was dismissed by Collector Panipat vide order dated 29.9.1998. Bhartu accepted this order and did not challenge it further. Thus the process of partition was completed. The present respondents had no locus-standi to file the revision petition before Commissioner because they were not aggrieved by the order of Collector dated 29.9.1998. Only Bhartu challenged this order which was dismissed by Collector Panipat vide order dated 29.9.1998. Bhartu accepted this order and did not challenge it further. Thus the process of partition was completed. The present respondents had no locus-standi to file the revision petition before Commissioner because they were not aggrieved by the order of Collector dated 29.9.1998. The Counsel for the petitioner stressed upon the fact that the sanad takseem has been prepared and issued in this case and the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted the citation 1998(1) PLJ page 68 ‘Raj Kumar and others vs Ram Saran and others’, Once possession has been delivered to the erst-while co-sharers as per instrument of partition, the aggrieved party can approach only the civil courts for redressal of any grievance and no revision lies against the partition proceedings. I accept the revision and set aside the orders of the Commissioner Rohtak Division dated 12.5.2005. The parties are at liberty to file their case in the civil courts. To be communicated. Petition allowed. —————————————