Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 272 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. Commissioner Jalandhar Division

2017-02-01

AMIT RAWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. This order of mine shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure P-3) of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which came to be passed on filing of revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 by Jagtar Singh and Hardev Singh against the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Jalandhar-II, vide which the mode of partition in respect of land in dispute had been ordered. 3. Contention of their was that earlier Assistant Collector vide order dated 28.11.2013 had suggested mode of partition which was ordered after recording statements of the parties on account of being ad idem. However, it was natural mode of partition but land abutting the road was found to be more valuable and being in possession of the petitioner herein Pritam Singh, but without hearing the private respondents, Assistant Collector vide impugned order dated 17.06.2014 changed the mode of partition and ordered that possession be kept intact. 4. This Court called upon Mr. Paramjit Rajput, Advocate to show any averments made in the writ petition or any documents whether the land in possession of the petitioner is of more superior quality, but there is not averments in the writ petition nor any affidavit has been filed, much less, any naksha or aks sajra. Purpose of causing the mode of partition is to do the equal justice and equal distribution of the land both of inferior and superior quality. The Assistant Collector has no jurisdiction to change the mode of partition, in the absence of the parties, thus, rightly so, Commissioner while exercising the powers vesting under Section 16 had set aside the order dated 17.06.2014 and restored the earlier mode of possession which was recorded on the consensus of the parties i.e. on 28.11.2013. 5. I am of the view that the aforementioned exercise of power is perfectly in accordance with law and cannot be said to be without jurisdiction as being admitted to be urged by referring to the amended provision of Section 16 of the Act, whereby amendment has been caused w.e.f. 28.01.2013. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, present writ petitions are dismissed.