Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2959 (PNJ)

Swarn Kaur v. Hardial Singh

2010-10-28

N.S.KANG

body2010
JUDGMENT N.S. Kang, I.A.S. - These are two revision petitions under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 filed against the order dated 9-4-03 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division in the matter of partition of the land situated in village Karnana, Tehsil and District S.B.S. Nagar. Since the points of law and fact involved in both these petitions are similar, they shall be disposed of by this common order; and a copy thereof be placed on each file. 2. The brief facts of the cases are that Hardial Singh etc., petitioners in ROR No. 562/03, filed three applications for partition before the Assistant Collector Grade-I. These were consolidated, a joint Mode of Partition was proposed and confirmed, and the partition was finally sanctioned on 28-2-01. Four appeals were filed against this order before the Collector, S.B.S. Nagar who himself inspected the spot and ordered that 4 kanals of land on the south-eastern side of khasra No. 15/2 should be allotted to Lakhvir Singh etc., respondents, and an equal amount of land be deducted from their share of khasra Nos. 10, 11, 13/1, 14/1 and 15/1. Thereafter four petitions were filed before the Commissioner, who accepted the one filed by Lakhvir Singh etc., rejected the other three petitions and set aside the orders of both the Assistant Collector Grade-I and the Collector, thereby ordering fresh partition of the land in dispute. This is the order new under challenge. 3. ROR No. 508/03 has been filed by Swarn Kaur etc., contending that their possession had wrongly been disturbed and that the entire land holding should be made in one tak. The other petition No. ROR No. 562/03 has been filed by Hardial Singh etc., contending that the orders of the Assistant Collector Grade-I and Collector, Nawanshahar were balanced and well reasoned, and should be upheld. 4. The contentions noted above were reiterated by Counsel for parties when the cases were taken up for consideration. Counsel for Swarn Kaur etc. only pointed out that their entire land holding should be made in one tak instead of the two as proposed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I. On behalf of Hardial Singh etc.. it has been contended that the orders passed by both the Assistant Collector Grade-I and Collector were detailed ones, passed after inspecting the spot in question and assessing the ground realities. it has been contended that the orders passed by both the Assistant Collector Grade-I and Collector were detailed ones, passed after inspecting the spot in question and assessing the ground realities. It was only a result of such inspection that the Collector had ordered a minor revision in the petition finalized by the Assistant Collector Grade-I. Even though the Collector had passed an order which substantially benefited the respondents Lakhvir Singh etc., yet the petitioners had no objection to it since it was based on an objective assessment conducted at the spot. The Commissioner however had set aside these orders without any substantial reason. Counsel pointed out that a major reason weigthing with Commissioner was that the tak of Lakhvir Singh etc. should not have been prepared jointly with Swarn Kaur etc. However, this argument should not have been taken into account at all because both these parties had themselves asked for a joint tak before the Assistant Collector Grade-I. 5. Even though Lakhvir Singh appeared only as respondent, and not as the petitioner at this stage, yet the counsel appearing on his behalf also pointed out that the Assistant Collector Grade-I did not decide his objections and that his tak had been formed jointly with Swarn Kaur etc., against his wishes. He also claimed that land abutting the main road should be given to him. 6. I have considered rival contentions carefully. As far as contentions raised on behalf of Swarn Kaur are concerned, I do not find any merits therein. Her only contention is that the entire share should be consolidated in one tak, and not two, as proposed in the partition. In this context, it has to be noted that the land which is the subject matter of partition is itself comprised of in two distinct taks one of which is near village abadi and the other at quite some distance therefrom. All share holders have been given land in two taks only and there is no substantial reason why this uniform practice should not be followed for Swarn Kaurs tak also. On the other hand, I find mirit in the contentions raised on behalf of Hardial Singh etc. After the Assistant Collector Grade-I had finalized the partition, the appellate order passed by the Collector, S.B.S. Nagar is a well reasoned and logical order passed after inspection of the spot. On the other hand, I find mirit in the contentions raised on behalf of Hardial Singh etc. After the Assistant Collector Grade-I had finalized the partition, the appellate order passed by the Collector, S.B.S. Nagar is a well reasoned and logical order passed after inspection of the spot. There is no major infirmity or irregularity therein. The Commissioner set aside this order merely on the ground that the taks of Lakhvir Singh etc., and Swarn Kaur etc., should have been formed separately and not joint. This finding however is unsustainable because these parties had submitted a joint reply dated 21-1-2000 before the Assistant Collector Grade-I in response to the application filed by Hardial Singh. There is also an application dated 30-6-2000 on their behalf that their kurrha should be prepared jointly. In this background, I have to held that the Commissioner was in error in setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector Grade-I and the Collector, S.B.S. Nagar on the ground noted above. The Commissioner has also recorded that there are two separate sets of owners i.e. Lakhvir Singh etc., and Swarn Kaur etc. This conclusion is again unsustainable, for the distinct impression obtaining from a perusal of the file reveals that both these parties have been acting in concert merely with a view to delay the partition proceedings. As a result of the above discussion, the petition filed by Swarn Kaur etc., (ROR No. 508/2003) is dismissed while petition filed by Hardial Singh etc., (ROR No. 562/2003) is accepted. The order dated 9-4-03 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division is set aside and it is directed that the partition be finalized in terms of the Collector, S.B.S. Nagars order dated 23-08-01. Petition dismissed.