Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1965 (PNJ)

Surinder Singh v. Sham Singh

2007-11-12

ROMILA DUBEY

body2007
ORDER Romila Dubey, F.C. - This revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the orders dated 14.6.05, 26.4.01 and 30.1.01 of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, SDM-cum-Collector Baba Bakala and Tehsildar-cum-ACI Baba Bakala respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Surinder Singh and others filed an application dated 5.6.97 in the court of Tehsildar-cum-A.C.I Baba Bakala under section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for the partition of land situated in village Jharu Nangal Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar. The A.C.I sanctioned the partition on 4.6.99. However, Surinder Singh filed an appeal before the SDM-cum-Collector Baba Bakala who vide his order dated 24.12.99 observed that khasra No. 38//4/2(4-18) has been shown twice in Naksha Irri is patently wrong. The Collector, therefore, accepted the appeal and remanded the case to A.C.I Baba Bakala On remand the A.C.I Baba Bakala approved the Naksha Irri and sanctioned partition vide his order dated 30.8.2000. Now Sham Singh and others filed appeal before the Collector Baba Bakala, who accepted the same vide his order dated 25.10.2000 and remanded the case to A.C.I to sanction the partition in view of the Naksha Irri prepared by the field staff on 8.5.2000 bearing the signatures of Pritam Singh Patwari and also of Halqa Kanungo. Accordingly the A.C.I sanctioned the partition, vide his order dated 30.1.2001. Aggrieved the petitioners filed appeal before Collector Baba Bakala who vide his order dated 26.4.01 dismissed the same. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was also dismissed on 14.6.05 Hence the present revision petition. 3. Arguments in this case were heard on 8.10.2007 and today the case is fixed for announcement of orders. While arguing, the counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and argued that the partition is in contradiction of clauses 6 and 7 of Mode of Partition and further the inferior quality of land has been given to the petitioners whereas the good quality of land has been given to the respondents. The counsel further submitted that the land of the petitioners have been bifurcated in two kurras which is totally uneconomical and unmanageable. The petitioners have houses in khasra No. 27 and have installed tubewell in khasra No. 38/17, so their kurra must be made at one place, near their house and tubewell. The counsel further submitted that the land of the petitioners have been bifurcated in two kurras which is totally uneconomical and unmanageable. The petitioners have houses in khasra No. 27 and have installed tubewell in khasra No. 38/17, so their kurra must be made at one place, near their house and tubewell. The counsel contended that the petitioners are still in possession of disputed land and cultivating the same and no physical possession has ever been delivered to the parties as per the impugned orders till date. The counsel argued that the lower courts below failed to appreciate these points in the impugned orders. 4. On the other hand the counsel for the respondents No. 1-5 and respondent No. 6 argued that all the courts below have given concurrent findings and impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They contended that the Dakhal as per the partition order has already been taken and considerations for the standing crops have been given and, as such the final partition has been implemented. The counsel contended that no appeal or revision lies at this stage. The reliance has been placed upon 1997(2) PLJ page 67. The counsel also filed a copy of order dated 25.10.2000 of Collector Baba Bakala. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 argued that once all the necessary steps in effecting partition have been taken then a party to proceedings cannot raise objections in drawing the instrument of partition. The counsel placed reliance upon Judgment of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lala Ram v. F.C. Haryana and others, AIR 1992 Page 62. 5. After hearing both the parties and carefully going through the impugned orders of the lower courts, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and any reason to differ with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Mode of Partition was approved on 7.5.99 and Naksha Irri was sanctioned by A.C.I on 4.6.99. 5. After hearing both the parties and carefully going through the impugned orders of the lower courts, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and any reason to differ with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Mode of Partition was approved on 7.5.99 and Naksha Irri was sanctioned by A.C.I on 4.6.99. Both these orders were challenged by Surinder Singh, the present petitioner before the Collector Baba Bakala, who observed in his order dated 24.11.99 that khasra No. 38//4/2(4-18) has been mentioned twice in Naksha lrri and it was only on this count, the Collector Baba Bakala vide his order dated 24.12.99 remanded the case to A.C.I and thus set aside the order dated 4.6.99 but nothing is said about the order dated 7.5.99 whereby Mode of Partition was sanctioned by A.C.I. Since the petitioners did not file any appeal or revision before the higher court, the order dated 24.12.99 of Collector Baba Bakala regarding Mode of Partition attained finality. A.C.I passed the impugned order dated 30.1.01 sanctioning the final partition as per Naksha Irri dated 8.5.2000 as per the directions given by the Collector Baba Bakala vide his order dated 25.10.2000 in the appeal filed by the present respondent Sham Singh and others. Obviously, the present petitioners did not raise any objection at that time before the Collector against Naksha Irri dated 8.5.2000. Not only this, the present petitioners did not challenge the order dated 25.10.2000 of Collector Baba Bakala by way of filing any appeal or revision and as such the order dated 25.10,2000 of Collector Baba Balaka has also attained finality. The A.C.I Baba Bakala sanctioned the final partition on 30.1.2001 as per Naksha Irri dated 8.5.2000 strictly in accordance with the directions given by Collector Baba Bakala vide order dated 25.10.2001. I not find any illegality and infirmity in the orders of A.C.I dated 30.1.2001 which has been duly upheld by the Collector and Commissioner. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit. Announced. Petition dismissed.