Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1199 (PNJ)

Amrik Singh v. Karaj Singh

2008-07-08

ROMILA DUBEY

body2008
ORDER Romila Dubey, F.C. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8.8.2006 of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, order dated 13.12.2005 of Collector Tarn Taran and order dated 13.9.05 of ACI Tarn Taran. 2. The brief facts of this case are that Amrik Singh the present petitioner filed an application for the partition of land measuring 209K and 4M as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98, situated in village Gandiwind Tehsil Tarn Taran District Amritsar. The ACI vide his order dated 13.9.2005 approved Mode of Partition and ordered that partition will be done keeping possession of the parties intact. The petitioner Amrik Singh filed an appeal before the SDM-Cum-Collector mainly on the plea that the land of both kurrahs be given to both the parties. The Collector, however, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same vide his order dated 13.12.05. Still unsatisfied Amrik Singh filed a revision before the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was also dismissed on 8.8.06. Hence the present revision petition. 3. Both the counsel have filed written argument and desired to decide the case on the basis of written arguments. Today the case is fixed for announcement of orders. I have carefully gone through the written arguments filed by both the counsel. It is contended by Sh. A.S. Walia, Adv. counsel for the petitioner that there are two kurrahs of land and there is no reference in respect of both kurrahs. It is not made clear in the Mode of Partition that both the parties will be given land from both the kurrahs, whereas under the law every co-sharer is entitled to have his share from every block of land. Therefore, mode of partition needs correction. Further joint mode of partition can not be made of two different khewats under the law. The two khewats are at two different places, one near village which is more valuable and has got higher price while the other 3 km. away from the village abadi and the land is of less value. 4. On the other hand it is contended in written arguments filed by S.K. Mahajan, Adv. Counsel for the responded that final partition has already been ordered in this case on 27.3.06 and the instrument of partition has been ordered. The Sanad Takseem has been prepared and placed on record of the case on 23.11.2006. 4. On the other hand it is contended in written arguments filed by S.K. Mahajan, Adv. Counsel for the responded that final partition has already been ordered in this case on 27.3.06 and the instrument of partition has been ordered. The Sanad Takseem has been prepared and placed on record of the case on 23.11.2006. It is further contended that the order dated 27.3.2006 has become final between the parties as no appeal has been filed against this order. It is contended that as held by Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2001(2) R.C.R. (C) 739 Law does not provide appeal against order under section 121 through which Revenue Officer prepares instrument of partition after partition proceedings have been completed. Further another Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2005(3) PLR 519 held that the Punjab Lane Revenue Act does not provide any remedy against the final order of partition which is concluded by the drawing up of the Sanad Takseem. I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that after final partition and preparation of Sanad Takseem the present appeal against the Mode of Partition carries no weight. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Announced. Petition dismissed.