Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3041 (PNJ)

Nisha Ram v. Bhagat Ram

2010-11-11

N.S.KANG

body2010
ORDER N.S. Kang, I.A.S. - This is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 29-12-06 passed by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, whereby he had dismissed the petition filed against the order dated 21-4-06 of the Collector, Balachaur in partition proceedings pending between the parties. 2. The case has a history of prolonged litigation, and the initial partition application was filed in the year 1992. The details of the litigation have been spelt out in the order of Assistant Collector Grade-1, and summarized in the order of the Commissioner, and need not be repeated in this order. Suffice to say that after the Mode of Partition was finalized on 4-10-93 providing that partition would be on the basis of possession, it was set aside in appeal by the Collector, Balachaur on 1-3-94. The Assistant Collector Grade-1 again proposed Moded of Partition on 5-7-94 in similar terms, and this was again set aside by the Collector on 29-12-94 on the ground that the earlier remand order had not been complied with. This order of the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on 28-7-99. However no further action in the matter seems to have been taken till the year 2004 when the petitioner Nisha Ram moved an application before the Assistant Collector Grade-1 that the partition proceedings should be restarted since the Commissioner had decided the matter. Upon this the Assistant Collector Grade-1 reframed the Mode of Partition on 7-1-05 and finalized the partition on its basis. On the contentious issued of possession, it was decided by the Assistant Collector Grade-1 that "front portion of the land situated on the road side be allotted proportionately to the co-sharers as per their entitlement". An appeal and subsequent revision against this partition were dismissed. 3. When the case was taken up for consideration, the main point urged by counsel for the petitioner is that the Mode of Partition finalized in the year 1994 had been upheld by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division in the year 1999 and had thus become final. In this proposal, partition had been proposed on the basis of possession. However the Assistant Collector Grade-1 had reframed Mode of Partition on 7-1-05 without any jurisdiction, and as such the partition proceedings finalized on its basis were a nullity, it was contended. In this proposal, partition had been proposed on the basis of possession. However the Assistant Collector Grade-1 had reframed Mode of Partition on 7-1-05 without any jurisdiction, and as such the partition proceedings finalized on its basis were a nullity, it was contended. Against this, counsel for the respondents had pointed out that the petitioners had not challenged the Mode of Partition dated 7-1-05 and it had, therefore, become final. He continued that once this was so, the subsequent partition could not be challenged because it was only a step towards execution of the Mode of Partition. The ruling 1992 PLJ 45 was accepted in this context. Counsel also pointed out that the Sanad Taqseem had since been issued, and interference by way of revision was not warranted at this stage. 4. I have considered these rival contentions carefully. The petitioners main argument is that once the Mode of Partition framed in 1994 had become final, there was no occasion for the Assistant Collector Grade-I to reframe the Mode of Partition in January 2005. This was an unlawful order and there was no need to challenge it. Against this, it has to be seen that after the Commissioners order dated 28-7-99 the file was virtually in cold storage for many years, and the partition was restarted only in the year 2004. To my mind there is no irregularity on part of the Assistant Collector Grade-1 in revisiting the situation after a lapse of 11 years, especially since no substantial proceedings had taken place in the interim. It is note worthy that the petitioner did not challenge the Mode of Partition dated 7-1-05. As such, in view of the legal position outlined by respondents counsel it has to be held that the Mode of Partition dated 7-1-05 had become final and the partition finalized on its basis should be upheld. Once this is so, it is clear that the revision is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.