Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1095 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. Baldev Singh

2009-07-07

ROMILA DUBEY

body2009
ORDER Romila Dubey, FC - This is a revision petition filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 28.9.2005 of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, order dated 18.1.02 of Collector, Baba Bakala and order dated 29.6.2001 of A.C.I. Baba Bakala. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that Baldev Singh, present respondent No. 1 filed application for the partition of land measuring 86K 6M situated in village Dhar deo, Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92. After completing initial formalities, the Tehsildar-cum- A.C.I vide his order dated 29.6.01 approved Naqsha Irri. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner firstly filed an appeal before the Collector and then revision before the Commissioner which were dismissed on 18.1.2002 and 28.9.05 respectively. Hence the present revision petition. 3. Arguments in this case were heard on the last date of hearing when orders were reserved. Both the counsel were directed to file written arguments also within a week, if they so desire. Sh. P.L. Singla, counsel for the petitioner argued mainly on the basis of that grounds taken in the revision petition. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that land measuring 4K 13M and 21K 11M was purchased by the petitioner through 2 sale deeds and accordingly the mutation was also entered, prior to the filing an application for partition by respondent wherein the petitioners were not deliberately impleaded as party. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application before the A.C.I Baba Bakala to implead them party in the partition case which was not decided by the A.C.I. Nor any notice was given to the parties and A.C.I wrongly passed order dated 29.6.01. Naqsha Urra was also wrongly prepared; the courts below did not take into consideration the civil litigation pending between the parties and ignored the status quo regarding possession and alienation of the property ordered by the civil court on 27.5.99. Further the Mode of Partition was wrongly prepared. Baljit Singh and Surjit Singh the other co-sharers were also not Impleaded as parties. 4. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that orders of the lower courts are well reasoned and deserve to be maintained. Further the Mode of Partition was wrongly prepared. Baljit Singh and Surjit Singh the other co-sharers were also not Impleaded as parties. 4. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that orders of the lower courts are well reasoned and deserve to be maintained. The counsel argued that no appeal lies against the final partition and in the instant case the Sanad Takseem has already been prepared and therefore as such no appeal was maintainable before the Collector and as such the present revision is not maintainable. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 also filed written arguments wherein it is contended that the petitioners are in possession more land than their share and therefore they want to stretch out the litigation and the present revision petition is only delaying tact in delivery of possession to respondents. It is contended that after issue of Sandad Takseem no revision or appeal lies. Reliance has been placed upon Honble Financial Commissioner in 1997(2) PLJ 67, Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 2001(2) RCR(C) 739 and Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2005(3) PLR 519. It is contended that names of the present petitioners are clearly mentioned as respondent No. 10 and 11 in the impugned order dated 29.6.01 of A.C.I. It is contended that Mode of Partition has already attained finality because no appeal was filed against this order. Sh. J.S. Gill Advocate appeared on behalf of the present petitioners and received copy of partition application as per zimni order dated 30.7.99 and 21.9.99. No objection was raised by the parties on Naqsha Urra even after 18 opportunities provided to them. 5. I have carefully perused the revision petition, as well as orders and record of the lower courts and also written arguments filed by the respondent. All the points raised by the present petitioner have already been dealt with by the Collector and Commissioner and there is nothing new in the present revision petition. The petitioner has been appearing through his counsel Sh. J.S. Gill, Adv. as mentioned in the orders of A.C.I and Collector. Hence the petitioner can not say that the A.C.I passed orders without giving adequate opportunity to them. The petitioner has been appearing through his counsel Sh. J.S. Gill, Adv. as mentioned in the orders of A.C.I and Collector. Hence the petitioner can not say that the A.C.I passed orders without giving adequate opportunity to them. The petitioners did not file any appeal against the MOP or against Naksha Urra and Irri and but are agitating the matter when Sanad Takseem has already been issued. I, therefore, find force in the arguments of counsel for the respondent that the petitioner wants only to delay the handing over of possession to the other party; whereas it is settled law that after preparation of instrument of partition no appeal or revision lies. I, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being without any merit. Announced. Petition dismissed.