Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 956 (PNJ)

Zora Singh s/o Boor Singh v. Jasmail Singh

2015-05-19

KARAN AVTAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition u/s 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been filed against order dated 22-12-2001 passed by District Collector, Faridkot and order dated 11-9-2013 passed by Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, in the matter of partition. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Zora Singh (petitioner) had filed an application for partition of land measuring 181 kanals 8 marlas situated in the village Nathewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot, in which the Assistant Collector Grade-I vide his order dated 31-5-2010 sanctioned Naksha Jeem. Against this order, Jasmail Singh (respondent) tiled a review application before District Collector mainly on the ground that the order has been passed in his absence and that he has installed a Tube-well bore and constructed a Pucca room in Khasra No. 842/302/2 and 844/303/1. However, in partition these khasra Nos. have been given to Zora Singh, but no passage has been provided to him to approach the Tube well bore and Pucca Room. The District Collector vide order dated 22-12-2011 partially accepted the application and ordered to give two karams of passage to Jasmail Singh to approach his Tubewell connection/Pucca Room by deducting the land covered under the above passage from the share of Jasmail Singh. Aggrieved with this order, Zora Singh filed an appeal before Commissioner, Faridkot Division, which was dismissed on 11-9-2013, leading to the present revision. 3. Arguments of counsel for the respondent No. 1 were heard on 12-5-2015, whereas written arguments have been filed by the counsel for the petitioner in which he has reiterated the grounds in the petitioner, viz. Assistant Collector Grade-I had approved Naqsha Bey vide order dated 20-4-2010 after following due process. However, thereafter respondent No. 1 constructed a temporary shed and borewell with malafide intentions in land that fell to the share of petitioner. Impugned order sanctioning Naqsha Jeem, the Sanad Taqseem has been issued and possession handed over to shareholders by warrants of possession on 22-6-2011. The respondent made no appeal against impugned order dated 31-5-10 although he was party to it. He has falsely claimed that he came to know of the order only on 22-6-11 when Halqa Kanungo reached the site to deliver possession. Further, once partition proceedings had been finalized and Sanad Taqseem issued, the Collector and Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal and only the Financial Commissioner could have entertained a revision petition. He has falsely claimed that he came to know of the order only on 22-6-11 when Halqa Kanungo reached the site to deliver possession. Further, once partition proceedings had been finalized and Sanad Taqseem issued, the Collector and Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal and only the Financial Commissioner could have entertained a revision petition. Hence, the impugned order is void abinitio being without jurisdiction. 4. Counsel for respondent has argued that in this case the principles of natural justice must override the question of jurisdiction, if any. The impugned order upholds the Collector’s order that directs the Assistant Collector Grade-I to amend the partition order by providing respondent a rasta 2 karams wide for access to his room and borewell. This should have been done by Assistant Collector Grade-I in the first place keeping in view the Mode of Partition. However, it was left to the Field Kanungo who implemented the warrant of possession on 22-6-11 to point out that respondent had a room and borewell in Khasra No. 844/303/1 and possession of 514 marlas was given to him out of this khasra number on this account. This is stated in the Rapart Roznamcha and in remarks column of the Farad Jamabandi. 5. I have perused the record of the case. It is settled law that once partition proceedings are finalized by issue of the instrument of partition (Sanad Taqseem) under section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act then no appeal lies and the partition is final. However, it has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the Financial Commissioner may exercise revisionary jurisdiction u/s 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, and may after calling of the record and hearing parties, pass appropriate orders. 6. In the present case the record shown that during the process of executing warrants of possession in the Field Kanungo found certain discrepancies on site and recorded these in the Rapat Roznamcha as described in para 4 above. The petitioner has sought amendment of the partition orders on this basis. In this context the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned orders are as follows : “From the perusal of record, it stands amply proved that partition proceedings had been conducted in the absence of respondent Jasmail Singh about which he came to know only at the time of delivery of possession. In this context the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned orders are as follows : “From the perusal of record, it stands amply proved that partition proceedings had been conducted in the absence of respondent Jasmail Singh about which he came to know only at the time of delivery of possession. A perusal of the record also does to show that respondent Jasmail Singh had installed a Tube-well bore and had also constructed a Pucca Room in khasra No. 842/302/2 and 844/303/1 area of these khasra numbers has been allotted to the appellant in the partition proceedings, but no passage has been allotted to the contesting respondent to approach his Tube-well bore and Pucca Room. In the instant case, Collector has ordered only to provide passage to respondent No. 1 by deducting land covered by the passage from his share of the land and in this way no prejudice appears to have been caused to the appellant. In these circumstances, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 22-12-11, passed by the Collector (D.C), Faridkot and as such the same stands up-held and consequently, this appeal is dismissed, being without any merit.” 7. These findings have not been rebutted by the Counsel for Respondent. He has argued that neither Collector nor Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide this case. I find that this is a fit case for exercising revisional jurisdiction given the facts and circumstances summarized in the impugned orders, quoted above. In fact the Collector has noted that Respondents’ advocate had, agreed to Collector’s orders since it had no adverse impact on his interests. 8. It is necessary in this case, to correct the Sanad Taqseem so it reflects the situation on the ground. Accordingly Assistant Collector Grade-I is directed to recognize petitioner’s Borewell & rooms of (kotha) in Khasra Nos. 842/302/2 and 844/303/1 as per field Kanungo’s Rapat Roznamcha and provide a 2 Karams wide path (rasta) to this borewell, that path to be carved out of the petitioner’s share. 9. The case is disposed of accordingly. Announced.