IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue Law--Principle contained in the Civil Procedure Code would apply, especially on an aspect when the provisions in the Punjab Land Revenue Act are silent

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 filed application for partition of a land mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner appeared in response to notice and filed written statement. He, however, could not bring out certain relevant facts in the reply so filed. He accordingly moved an application seeking permission to file amended written statement. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. The application seeking amendment, however, was dismissed on 2.12.2003. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same, which was dismissed by Collector on 8.7.2004. The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed on 2.6.2005 and so was the fate of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner. In fact, the petition filed before the Financial Commissioner has been dismissed on the ground that it has become infructuous without going into the merits.

2. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rajpura, rejected the application by simply observing that at that stage written statement can not be amended. This in fact was no valid reason to decline the prayer for amendment of the writ petition. The appeal filed before the Collector was dismissed on the ground that there was no provision in the Punjab Land Revenue Act to amend the written statement. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Commissioner also up-held the order, saying that the petitioner has not been able to give satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies mentioned by the Collector in his order. The Financial Commissioner did not go into the merits of the controversy and dismiss the petition filed before him only on the ground that instrument of partition (Sanad Takseem) was issued by the Collector and so the revision petition had become infructuous.

3. On a notice having been issued, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have put in appearance and have filed reply. A preliminary objection has been raised, saying that the petitioner had challenged the interim order whereas now the partition proceedings have come to an end and instrument of partition issued. It is accordingly pleaded that the case of partition is rendered infructuous. In the reply, it is also disclosed that the amendment sought now would be meaningless. It is stated by the counsel during the course of arguments that the suit filed by the petitioner has already been decided and he is not held entitled to the land, which he wants to claim by way of filing an amended written statement. The counsel for the respondents accordingly stated that no useful purpose would now be served by allowing this amendment.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The view taken by the collector and upheld by the Commissioner that the amendment of the written statement can not be permitted as the provisions of CPC do not apply to the proceedings before a revenue Court would not depict a totally correct position. No doubt, the provisions of CPC may not apply to such proceedings but still the principle contained in the Civil Procedure Code would apply, especially on an aspect when the provisions in the Punjab Land Revenue Act are silent. Thus, denying the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground that there is no provision for amendment and that CPC would not apply can not be accepted as fully correct position in law. The Financial Commissioner instead of going into the merits on this ground, simply held that the petition before him was rendered infrucutous as Sanad Takseem stood issued. This can not again be accepted as correct position in law. In a recent decision dated 15.5.2007 given by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 19985 of 2005 (Resham Singh @ Dilbagh Singh v. Assistant Collector Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Phillaur & others), it has been observed that it is true that Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 does not provide for an appeal against Sanad Takseem, but still went on to hold that an aggrieved person cannot be left without a forum to seek