Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1778 (PNJ)

Dharam Singh v. Kuldip Singh

2007-10-01

ROMILA DUBEY

body2007
ORDER Smt. Romila Dubey, F.C. - The revision petition has been filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1997, against the order dated 22.9.2004, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1-2 (Kuldip Singh and Ranjit Singh) against the order dated 31.5.2001, passed by the SDM-cum-Collector, Amritsar-II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that mutation No. 2115 of village Kamboj, Tehsil and Distt. Amritsar, was entered by the Patwari circle on the basis of family partition, dated 22.2.84 and the same was sanctioned by A.C.II Grade, Amritsar-II, vide order dated 20.6.94. 3. The respondent No. 3, Darshan Singh filed an appeal before the Collector Amritsar-II, pleading that he has not been provided opportunity of hearing and mutation was sanctioned at his back and that the document of family partition was forged and fabricated. The Collector accepted the appeal vide order dated 31.5.2001. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Kuldip Singh and Ranjit Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar, mainly on the grounds that the lower court erred in accepting the hopelessly time barred appeal without condoning the delay; entries regarding the mutation were entered in the latest jamabandi and such entries could be rectified by civil court only and written document dated 22.2.84 regarding family partition was wrongly ignored. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the document on the basis of which the mutation had been sanctioned by the AC-II has been proved to be forged and fabricated therefore the Collector was right in accepting the appeal and dismissed the same, vide order dated 22.9.2004. Hence, the present revision petition by Dharam Singh and others. 5. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the property originally belongs to Arjan Singh s/o Atma Singh who expired on 18.12.85. Arjan Singh had three sons namely Kuldeep Singh, Ranjit Singh and Darshan Singh, present respondent Nos. 1-3 and wife Harbans Kaur. Family partition was made on 22.8.84 according to which land measuring 51K 12M situated in village Kamboj Tehsil and Distt. Amritsar came to the share of Kuldip Singh and Ranjit Singh (sons) and Harbans Kaur (wife) in equal share. Arjan Singh had three sons namely Kuldeep Singh, Ranjit Singh and Darshan Singh, present respondent Nos. 1-3 and wife Harbans Kaur. Family partition was made on 22.8.84 according to which land measuring 51K 12M situated in village Kamboj Tehsil and Distt. Amritsar came to the share of Kuldip Singh and Ranjit Singh (sons) and Harbans Kaur (wife) in equal share. The entire land of village Bohru measuring 21K 10M came to the share of present respondent No. 3, Darshan Singh the third son and the land measuring 9K 16M situated in village Mullechak was equally distributed between the sons and wife of Arjan Singh. Subsequently mutation No. 2115 was sanctioned by the A.C.II Amritsar regarding land 51K 12M situated in village Kamboj in favour of Kuldeep Singh and Ranjit Singh (sons) and Harbans Kaur (widow) of Arjan Singh. Thereafter, Harbans Kaur widow of Arjan Singh transferred her share of land of village Kamboj to her daughter-in-law namely Sukhwant Kaur, wife of Kuldeep Singh, and Paramjit Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh. The petitioners purchased this land vide six sale deeds dated 29.12.2000, 27.3.2001 (Two sale deeds), 10.4.01 (Two sale deeds) and 3.5.2001. However, the respondents No. 3 Darshan Singh filed an appeal before the Collector Amritsar against the order dated 20.6.94 sanctioning mutation No. 2115 by A.C.II after the lapse of 6 years and 8 months which was accepted by the Collector Amritsar on 31.5.2001 and appeal of Kuldeep Singh and Ranjit Singh was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 22.9.04. The counsel argued that the present petitioners are vendee from the original land owners and were not impleaded as party either before the Collector or before the Commissioner. The counsel argued that all the 6 sale deeds were executed in favour of the present petitioners before the passing of the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 of Collector. The counsel argued that mutation of sale deeds have already been sanctioned in their favour and have also been recorded in the revenue record including jamabandi for the year 1997-98. The counsel alleged that litigation before the lower courts was only inter se the brothers and the present petitioners were not party in the lower courts. The counsel alleged that the respondents connived together to illegally retrieve the land which was sold by them through registered sale deeds and obtained collusive orders from the lower courts. The counsel alleged that litigation before the lower courts was only inter se the brothers and the present petitioners were not party in the lower courts. The counsel alleged that the respondents connived together to illegally retrieve the land which was sold by them through registered sale deeds and obtained collusive orders from the lower courts. He alleged that the appeal filed by Darshan Singh respondent No. 3 against the order of A.C.II was time barred having been filed after 6 years and 8 months of the orders of A.C.II. The Counsel argued that the revenue courts do not have jurisdiction to set aside the mutation after its incorporation in the jamabandi. 6. On the other hand the counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 argued that the present petitioners was not party before the lower courts and as such he cannot file the present revision petition. The counsel argued that only the parties before the lower courts can go in revision and as such the present revision petition is not maintainable. The counsel further argued that the present petitioner can only go to civil court if they are aggrieved by the orders of Collector and Commissioner. 7. The counsel for the respondent No. 3 argued that the family partition dated 22.2.84 is forged and fabricated document. He argued that the alleged family partition document did not see the light of the day for 10 years and it is not understood as to why it was kept secret for such a long period. Had the document been genuine it would have been produced before the revenue officer immediately after its execution. The counsel referred to the orders of the Collector and argued that all the brothers and mother were co-sharers of the land of village Kamboj. But as per the family partition dated 22.2.84 the respondent No. 3 Darshan Singh has been given land in village Borhu in lieu of his share in village Kamboj. The counsel contended that while the name of respondent No. 3 has been deleted from the co-sharers of village Kamboj, the names of all the other co-sharers still stand entered in the revenue record of village Borhu and no land has been given to Respondent No. 3 in village Borhu in lieu of his share in village Kamboj. The counsel contended that while the name of respondent No. 3 has been deleted from the co-sharers of village Kamboj, the names of all the other co-sharers still stand entered in the revenue record of village Borhu and no land has been given to Respondent No. 3 in village Borhu in lieu of his share in village Kamboj. The counsel further averred that since Kuldeep Singh and Ranjit Singh did not challenge the order of Commissioner in appeal or revision before the higher courts the order of Commissioner has attained finality and the present petitioner has no locus standi to file the present revision petition. 8. Rebutting the arguments put-forth by the counsel for the respondents, the counsel for the petitioner argued that it is not necessary that only the parties before the lower courts can come in appeal or revision. He averred that anyone aggrieved by the orders of lower courts can seek remedy by filing a revision under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. In support of his contention the counsel cited Jai Kumar v. Chand Singh, 1968 OLJ 54. The counsel further argued that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners who purchased the land in question well before passing of impugned orders by the Collector. The counsel argued that it is against the principle of natural justice. The counsel cited Ram Narain v. Jai Chand, 1962 P.L.J. 33 wherein it is held that all the interested parties must be given an opportunity of appearing before passing the mutation and where it is not done, there is metarial irregularities in the exercise of the jurisdiction. 9. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and gone through the revision petition as well as the orders of the lower courts. The petitioners are vendee of land from some of the co-sharers on the basis of family partition dated 22.8.84 duly mutated on 20.6.94 by AC-II and subsequently entered in the jamabandi for year 1997-98 of Village Kamboj. In the revision petition it is alleged that Darshan Singh was also present at the time of sanctioning of mutation and the appeal was filed by him before the Collector after the lapse of 6 years and 8 months. The land was purchased by the present Vendees before passing of the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 by the Collector. In the revision petition it is alleged that Darshan Singh was also present at the time of sanctioning of mutation and the appeal was filed by him before the Collector after the lapse of 6 years and 8 months. The land was purchased by the present Vendees before passing of the impugned order dated 31.5.2001 by the Collector. Surprisingly, the litigation before the lower courts was between the brothers only. Even before the Commissioner none of them pointed out that the land has already been sold to present petitioners. As such the Collector and Commissioner passed order on 31.5.2001 and 22.9.2004 at the back of the present petitioner. I, therefore, accept the revision of the present petitioner and remand the case to AC-II Amritsar to decide the matter afresh after hearing all the parties including the vendees, within three months. Announced. Petition allowed.