JUDGMENT Mr. S.J. Vazifdar, ACJ.: - Reply filed in the Court is taken on record. 2. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab dated 17.10.2013 holding that the decision on the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act will be taken after the final decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The application under Section 28-A of the Act was on the basis of an award of the Reference Court which enhanced the compensation in an application under Section 18 of the Act filed by the other land owners. The appeal against that order is pending in this Court. 3. The Land Acquisition Collector’s decision to consider the petitioners’ application under Section 28-A of the Act after the decision of this Court or after the decision of the Supreme Court in the event of an appeal being filed against that order is in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court in Babu Ram and others v. State of U.P. and another (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 689 and in particular paragraph 39 thereof which reads as under: “39. The next question is whether the Collector/LAO on receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 28-A is bound to redetermine the compensation while the award and decree under Section 26 is pending consideration in the appeal in the High Court or appellate forum. If he does so, whether award under Section 28-A(2) is illegal? It is settled law that the decree of the trial court gets merged in the decree of the appellate court which alone is executable. The finality of the determination of the compensation is attained with the decree of the appellate forum, be it the High Court or this Court. Take for instance that ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ are interested persons in the land notified under Section 4(1) and the compensation determined in the award under Section 11. ‘A’ received the compensation without protest. ‘B’ and ‘C’ received the compensation under Section 31 under protest and sought and secured reference under Section 18. The court enhanced the compensation from the Collector’s award of Rs 10,000 to Rs 20,000. ‘B’ did not file appeal under Section 54 while ‘C’ filed the appeal. The High Court, suppose, further enhances the compensation to Rs 25,000 or reduces the compensation to Rs 15,000 per acre. The court enhanced the compensation from the Collector’s award of Rs 10,000 to Rs 20,000. ‘B’ did not file appeal under Section 54 while ‘C’ filed the appeal. The High Court, suppose, further enhances the compensation to Rs 25,000 or reduces the compensation to Rs 15,000 per acre. ‘A’ is a person aggrieved only to the extent of the excess amount awarded either by the award and decree of the court under Section 26 but he will not get the enhancement of further sum of Rs 5000 granted by the High Court in favour of ‘C’. The decree of the High Court is the executable decree made in favour of ‘C’. Unless redetermination is kept back till the appeal by the High Court is disposed of, incongruity would emerge. Suppose the State filed appeal in this Court under Article 136 against the High Court decree and this Court confirms the award of the Collector and sets aside the decree of civil court under Section 26 and of the High Court under Section 54. There is nothing left for redetermination. With a view to save ‘A’ or ‘B’ or the State from the consequences of such incongruous situations, the Collector/LAO should stay his hands in the matter of redetermination of compensation till the appeal is finally disposed of and he should redetermine the compensation only on the basis of the final judgment and decree of the appellate forum. Adoption of such course, would not merely avoid the chance element in the claimants getting the amounts of redetermined compensation but also avoids needless burden on public exchequer. As soon as the award of the civil court is carried in appeal, it becomes obligatory for the Collector to keep the application/ applications for redetermination of compensation filed within limitation pending, awaiting decision by the appellate forum and to redetermine the compensation on the basis of the final judgment and decree. Normally the LAO would file the appeal against the enhanced compensation in a decree of either the civil court or the High Court and will know their pendency. In the case of appeal filed by the interested persons, the latter should inform the Collector/LAO of the pendency of appeal or otherwise comes to know of it should keep the applications for redetermination, received under sub-section (1) of Section 28-A within limitation pending, awaiting the decision by the appellate court. In the case of appeal filed by the interested persons, the latter should inform the Collector/LAO of the pendency of appeal or otherwise comes to know of it should keep the applications for redetermination, received under sub-section (1) of Section 28-A within limitation pending, awaiting the decision by the appellate court. Before proceeding with the determination, he should obtain an affidavit from the party making the application under Section 28-A that no appeal against the award made under Section 26 relied upon by him was filed or if had been filed was disposed of by the appellate court and to produce the certified copy of decree and judgment, if already disposed of.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the other matter, where an appeal is pending against the order of Reference Court enhancing the compensation, the learned Single Judge has granted an interim stay on condition that 50% of the enhanced amount is deposited. The learned Single Judge further permitted the claimants therein to withdraw the amount deposited without security. This circumstances, however, would not entitle us to take a different view from the one taken by the Supreme Court in Babu Ram’s case (supra). 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ Smt. Piari v. Financial Commissioner, Appeal-I, Punjab 2015(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1232 : 2015 LawHerald.Org 750 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh CWP No. 14951 of 2011 (O & M) Smt. Piari v. Financial Commissioner, Appeal-I, Punjab & Ors. {Decided on 12/02/2015} For the Petitioner: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. L.S. Virk, Addl. A. G. Punjab. For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate. For the Respondents No.6(a) to 6 (c): Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.123--Partition--When the land is partitioned as per the its quality and keeping in view the principles of consolidation and prevention of fragmentation, possibility of disturbance of possession to some extent is permissible. (Para 14) JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - CM-1939-CWP-2015 The present application is for impleading the legal representatives of deceased-Mansa Ram (respondent no.6), who is stated to have expired. The legal representatives of deceased-Mansa Ram are mentioned in para 2 of the application. It is stated that there is no other legal heir of deceased-Mansa Ram except the persons mentioned in the application. Heard. 2. The legal representatives of deceased-Mansa Ram are mentioned in para 2 of the application. It is stated that there is no other legal heir of deceased-Mansa Ram except the persons mentioned in the application. Heard. 2. Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The persons mentioned in the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal heirs of deceased for the limited purpose of pursuing this petition. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties. CWP No. 14951-2011 3. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent no.3-Collector, Nawanshahr, order dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent no.2- Commission, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent no.1-Financial Commissioner, Appeal-I, Punjab. 4. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that respondent no.5 filed application (Annexure P-1) for partition of land measuring 92 kanals 17 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Barnala, Tehsil and District SBS Nagar, before Assistant Collector Ist Grade Nawanshahr. After the receipt of notice in partition application, the petitioner and others appeared and filed reply taking plea that family partition had taken place between elders of the parties about 20 years back in pursuance of which parties are in separate possession of their respective share. It was also pleaded that possession may be kept intact. After completing necessary formalities, mode of partition was approved by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and thereafter Naksha Bey was called. Objections were called to the Naksha Bey and ultimately Assistant Collector-Ist Grade approved the Naksha Bey vide order dated 21.02.2005 (Annexure P-4). Against that, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector which was accepted and matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with a direction to decide the matter afresh by passing a detailed order, vide order dated 30.03.2006 (Annexure P-5). In pursuance of remand order passed by the Collector, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 26.07.2006 (Annexure P-6), ordered that partition may be effected keeping the possession intact and field staff was asked to prepare the partition papers. In pursuance of remand order passed by the Collector, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 26.07.2006 (Annexure P-6), ordered that partition may be effected keeping the possession intact and field staff was asked to prepare the partition papers. Against the order dated 26.07.2006 (Annexure P-6), respondent no.5 filed appeal before the Collector which was accepted and matter was again remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with a direction to effect the partition strictly according to the mode of partition already framed on 15.11.2002, vide impugned order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-7). Against that, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure P-8). Against that, the petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, Appeal-I, Punjab which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P-15). Hence, this writ petition. 5. In pursuance of notice of motion, respondent no.5 put in appearance and filed written statement with the averments that mode of partition was approved on 15.11.2002 and thereafter partition proceedings had continued for finalization of partition. Once mode of partition has become final, partition is to be carried out in accordance with the same as per law. 6. Replication was filed to the written statement of respondent no.5. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that land was partitioned 20 years back and in pursuance thereto, the parties are in possession of their respective shares. Now established possession of the parties cannot be disturbed by way of partition. Learned counsel made reference to the photographs (Annexure P-14) and site plan (Annexure P-12) which is stated to be prior to the partition. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondents no.6(a) to 6(c) vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that admittedly land has been shown joint in revenue records. As per jamabandis for the years 1992-93 (Annexure P-10) and 1997-98 (Annexure P-11), land has been shown to be joint whereas possession khasra numberwise has been shown in favour of respective co-sharers. It is merely for the purpose of cultivating the land, rather it is still joint in the revenue records. No settlement has been effected between the parties. As per jamabandis for the years 1992-93 (Annexure P-10) and 1997-98 (Annexure P-11), land has been shown to be joint whereas possession khasra numberwise has been shown in favour of respective co-sharers. It is merely for the purpose of cultivating the land, rather it is still joint in the revenue records. No settlement has been effected between the parties. If there would have been some settlement, the same should have been reflected in the revenue records or some writing must have been there. Learned counsel further contended that possession of parties has been kept intact as far as possible. Reference in this regard has been made to jamabandis (Annexures P-10 and P-11) to indicate the possession. Learned counsel further contended that parties have been given land on the main road as per their share. Respondent no.6 has ½ share in the total land whereas petitioner and respondent no.5 are having remaining half share. 10. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 did not raise objections, rather stated that he is the real sufferer, not the petitioner. Respondent no.5 has not been given land according to his possession. 11. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and with their valuable assistance perused the record. 12. Perusal of column no.5 of jamabandi for the years 1992-93 (Annexure P-10) and 1997-98 (Annexure P-11) reveals that some of land has been shown to be in joint cultivation of the parties and shareholders have also been shown in separate possession. The column no.5 of jamabandis (Annexures P-10 and P-11) specifies khasra numbers in possession of the parties. Perusal of jamabandi (Annexure P-11) reveals that Fakiria, father of respondent no.6, is shown to be in possession of separate khatoni no.935. All the khasra numbers have been compared. As per jamabandis, major share of khasra numbers belongs to Fakiria and partition is carried out by preparing compact taks in order to avoid fragmentation. Many a times, possession of one of the co-sharers is required to be disturbed. The site plan (Annexure P-12) which is stated to be depicting the actual physical possession prior to partition, does not apparently appears to be justified as land has been partitioned in such a manner that one of the shareholders was not given land on the main road. 13. The site plan (Annexure P-12) which is stated to be depicting the actual physical possession prior to partition, does not apparently appears to be justified as land has been partitioned in such a manner that one of the shareholders was not given land on the main road. 13. However, site plan (Annexure P-13) shows that land touching the main passage has been partitioned in a manner that everybody should get share according to his entitlement, therefore, possession of some of khasra numbers has been disturbed. When compact taks are prepared, disturbance of possession to some extent is natural. Perusal of site plan (Annexure P-13) makes it clear that respondent no.6 is having half share in the entire land whereas the petitioner is having ¼ share and respondent no.5 having 1/4th share. In this manner, the petitioner and respondent no.5 are bound to get proportionate share on the main passage/road. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that there is any variation in the quality of land of these taks or there is any violation of mode of partition. Everybody has been given land in a compact tak as shown in site plan (Annexure P-13). When the land is partitioned as per the its quality and keeping in view the principles of consolidation and prevention of fragmentation, possibility of disturbance of possession to some extent is permissible. 15. In view of above, no indulgence is called for in the impugned orders. Dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------