Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 943 (PNJ)

Ashish Kumar v. Bhoop Singh

2008-04-29

NARESH GULATI

body2008
ORDER 1. This is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division. 2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 8 were served by munadi which was got done in the village on 12.10.2007 and were proceeded ex-parte on 19.11.2007. 3. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners filed an application for the partition of land measuring 66 kanals 10 marla situated in the village Mandora Tehsil Kharkhoda Distt. Sonepat. The AC 2nd Grade Kharkhoda decided the mode of partition vide order dated 4.11.1996 and naksha kh was prepared accordingly. Naksha Zeem was also prepared on 17.6.97. Some of the co-sharers Smt. Lichmi etc. filed an appeal before the Collector against the order dated 14.5.97. The Collector vide order dated 17.10.97 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the AC II Grade Kharkhoda with the direction to partition the total land i.e., 97 kanal 12 marlas and decide the case afresh after impleading all the parties and separate khewat should be carved out for the appellant out of the land of the vendors. The AC Ist Grade Kharkhoda ordered for the preparation of amended mode of partition vide order dated 29.6.2004. The respondent party No.2 filed an appeal before the Collector Sonipat who vide his order dated 16.12.04 set aside the order dated 29.6.2004 passed by the AC Ist Grade Kharkhoda vide which Naksha Kha was approved. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Rohtak Division who also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.7.2006. Against this order the petitioners are before me in revision. 4. Counsel for the petitioners re-iterated the grounds of appeal and stated that the partition proceedings in this case had been undertaken on the application dated 19.7.96 moved by the petitioners. The respondents purchased land measuring 7 kanal 18 marla from the joint khawat of co-sharers namely Rajesh and Ved Pal vide sale deed dated 4.5.99. Contentions made by the respondent Shoop Singh etc. that they have purchased specific killa No. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 from Rajesh and Ved Pal is not tenable in the eyes of law. The respondents purchased land measuring 7 kanal 18 marla from the joint khawat of co-sharers namely Rajesh and Ved Pal vide sale deed dated 4.5.99. Contentions made by the respondent Shoop Singh etc. that they have purchased specific killa No. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 from Rajesh and Ved Pal is not tenable in the eyes of law. The sale of any specific killa No. would be considered the sale of a share in the joint holding, hence the claim of respondent Bhoop Singh over killa No. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 is bad in law. The counsel for the petitioner submitted the citation of 1981 PLJ page 204 Bhartu Vs. Ram Saroop. He further contended that the order of Collector, Sonipat dated 16.12.2004 being self contradictory also needs to be set aside. Similarly the un-reasoned order dated 6.7.07 passed by the Commissioner is also liable to be set aside. The petitioner Ashish Kumar and Ran Kumar were put in possession over killa No. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 and they are still in possession of the same killa numbers and their possession over these killa numbers is admitted by the respondents. The claim of the petitioners over killa Nos. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 is justified and same have been rightly allotted to them and the respondents Bhoop Singh etc. have got no right to challenge the partition proceedings in any manner because they are not parties to the partition proceedings and if they have any grouse or claim to settle they can only file separate proceedings for partition against their vendors namely Rajesh and Ved Pal. 5. The counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that the petitioners had accepted the partition proceedings which culminated in the Sanad Taksim wherein khasra No. 32/20/1/2, 20/2 and 21/1 were allotted to them. Now they are agitating that khasra No. 64/19/2 and 20/2 be allotted to them while it is a fact that these khasra numbers i.e. 64/9/2 and 20/2 have been purchased by respondent No.1 Bhup Singh vide sale deed dated 3.3.99. This finding of fact is not open to interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction especially when the Hon’ble High Court also up-held the orders of the Commissioner dated 6.7.2006. The admission if any made by other respondent Smt. Lichhmi etc. cannot bind him. The full bench citations produced by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case. This finding of fact is not open to interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction especially when the Hon’ble High Court also up-held the orders of the Commissioner dated 6.7.2006. The admission if any made by other respondent Smt. Lichhmi etc. cannot bind him. The full bench citations produced by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case. The said decision only states that where specific number have been sold out of a joint khewat, it would be considered to be a sale of a share and would not bring to an end the joint khewat. The said decision nowhere sates that specific khasra Nos cannot be sold out of a joint khewat or in the course of partition sale of specific khasra number can be ignored for the purpose of allocating land to different co-sharers. 6. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record of the case. I agree with the contentions of the counsel of the Respondent, that it is un-controverted finding of the facts that the Khasra No. 64//19/2, 20/2 have been purchased by the Respondent and finding of facts is not open to interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction especially when Hon’ble High Court has also upheld the findings in the civil revision No. 1635 of 2000. The vendee is to step in the shoes of the vendor, and as per the approved mode of partition, the possession is to be taken care of while partitioning the suit land. I also agree with the contentions of the counsel of the Respondent that the admission made by Smt. Lachhmi etc. against the interest of the Respondent is not binding upon him. I also agree with the contentions of the counsel of the Petitioner, that the sale of specific Khasra Nos. would be considered as, sale of shares in the joint holding. But in the present case, it is clear that Khasra No. 64//19/2, 20/2, were never purchased by the petitioners and hence they have no rightful claim upon them. Collector in his order dated 16.12.2004 has rightly observed that no separate khewat can be carved out for the present Respondent at this stage and his share of land should be included with that of Shri Vedpal and Rajesh vendors, so that he could get it partitioned at a later stage after completion of the present partition proceedings. Collector in his order dated 16.12.2004 has rightly observed that no separate khewat can be carved out for the present Respondent at this stage and his share of land should be included with that of Shri Vedpal and Rajesh vendors, so that he could get it partitioned at a later stage after completion of the present partition proceedings. Keeping in view the facts explained above, I find no irregularity in the findings of lower courts, therefore the revision petition is hereby dismissed. To be communicated. ———————