ORDER 1. This is revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against order dated 26.11.2010 of Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Ram Sarup (Respondent No. 2) filed an application before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rampura Phul for partition of the land in dispute, situated in village Phul-I, Patti Teliwala, Tehsil Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. This partition case was first decided by Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 30-11-2005, which was appealed against before Collector, who remanded the matter to Assistant Collector 1st Grade. After remand, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated 29.7.2008, sanctioned amended Naksha ‘Bey’ which was challenged by present petitioner before Collector, who vide order dated 5.12.2008 remanded the matter again to Assistant Collector 1st Grade with directions to re-check the shares of the parties and provide water-courses/passages wherever required. On remand, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade after rejecting the objections of the petitioner, vide his order dated 4.3.2009, upheld the amended Naksha ‘Bey’ sanctioned on 29.7.2008, wit the observations that water-course/passage has rightly been provided and that parties have been given land accordingly to their respective shares. Still aggrieved, the petitioners filed another appeal before Collector, Rampura Phool, who vide order dated 10.7.2009 dismissed the same with the observation that his previous order dated 5.12.2008 had been complied with that no shareholder can be given land more than his share on the basis of oral statement that watercourses/passages had already been attached to the land however, since no area has been deducted for this purpose, they were not shown in the Naksha. The Collector directed the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to proceed with the case after showing the watercourses and passages in the Naksha. Not satisfied the petitioners filed revision before Commissioner, who vide order 26.11.2010 dismissed the same. Hence the present revision. 3. Arguments of counsel for both the parties were heard on 27.1.2015. The respondents at S.No. 7, 8 and 10 had been proceeded exparte on 9.12.2014 due to non-appearance despite notice through proclamation in the revenue estate. 4. Counsel for petitioner explained that when Assistant Collector Grade-I finalised Naqsha ‘Bey’ for the first time on 31.3.2007 in this case the compromise deed dated 25.8.2006 (Razinaama) between shareholders in this joint khewat dated 25.5.2006 was not reflected therein. 4. Counsel for petitioner explained that when Assistant Collector Grade-I finalised Naqsha ‘Bey’ for the first time on 31.3.2007 in this case the compromise deed dated 25.8.2006 (Razinaama) between shareholders in this joint khewat dated 25.5.2006 was not reflected therein. The Collector (SDM) recorded in his order in appeal dated 5.12.08 that parties had accepted/admitted this compromise (Razinaama) and this was the main reason why he accepted the appeal and remanded the case to Assistant Collector Grade-I to prepare Naqsha ‘Bey’ afresh. However, when Assistant Collector Grade-I finalised the fresh Naqsha ‘Bey’ he ignored the directions in the Collector’s detailed, speaking order and did not provide additional area of 1 kanals 10 marlas to the petitioners in the sand dune (tibba) which was lower-valued, land as agreed in the Razinaama. However, when this second Naqsha ‘Bey’ was appealed by petitioners the Collector (vide order dated 10.7.2009) held that oral statements regarding share/title to land cannot be binding and that the shareholders were entitled to areas as per their shares recorded in the Jamabandi. Commissioner has upheld this (incorrect) view of Collector in the impugned order thereby depriving petitioners of extra land (1 kanal 10 marlas) agreed to given to them as compensation for inferior quality land. Hence the impugned order is bad. 5. Counsel for respondents has contested petitioners claim about the razinaama dated 25.8.2006 as only two of the respondents (Ram Sarup and Inderjit Singh) had signed it. By no stretch of imagination could it be legally binding on to other shareholders. Nor is this Razinaama based on correct facts, it mentions a ‘tibba’ (sand dune) allocated as petitioners’ Taq however, khasra No. 4/2, 7/1, 5/4 and 6/1 (area 8-0) are comprising land adjacent to other shareholders, which is of similar quality. In fact the entire joint khewat consists of a single contiguous site (total area about 32 kanals) abutting a rasta, it is irrigated and there is no appreciable difference in quality or productivity of land within this site. It is correct that khasra No. 4/2 (5-0) and 7/1 (0-8) do not abut the Rasta, but petitioner have a contiguous Taq, with the kahsra No. 5/4 (1-18) and 6/1 (0-13) abutting the Rasta. The Collector correctly records that the partition has to be done as per shares recorded in Jamabandi. Hence petition be rejected. 6. It is correct that khasra No. 4/2 (5-0) and 7/1 (0-8) do not abut the Rasta, but petitioner have a contiguous Taq, with the kahsra No. 5/4 (1-18) and 6/1 (0-13) abutting the Rasta. The Collector correctly records that the partition has to be done as per shares recorded in Jamabandi. Hence petition be rejected. 6. The bone of contention in this case is whether the Razinaama dated 25.8.06 needs to considered in partition proceedings and be given effect to by assistant Collector Grade - I when sanctioning Naqsha Bey. This Razinaama is between three brothers Ram Sarup, Inderjit Singh and Raghuvir Singh, who agreed thereby that Dharampal be given 1 kanal 10 marlas more than his share for reasons mentioned. Along with these three brothers the share-holders in the joint khewat included fourth brother Mohan Lal, and 3 sisters Vidya Wanti, Daya wanti and Kaushalya Devi (or their LR’s) none of whom were party to this Razinaama. Since this agreement is not between all share-holders clearly it cannot be implemented by Assistant Collector Grade-I during partition proceedings. Even the respondents who had signed the Razinaama have not reneged and contested it. In these circumstances the only course of action open to Assistant Collector Grade-I was to have followed the agreed mode of partition. The impugned order correctly notes that this was done. Hence, the petition is without merit and is dismissed. Announced. ---------0.B.S.0------------