IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue Law—Party who was not aggrieved by order of Collector cannot file revision before Commissioner.
Revenue Law—After issuance of instrument of partition, aggrevied party can approach only the Civil Courts and no revision lies against partition proceedings.

Naresh Gulati, F.C. — This revision petition has been filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 12.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners and the respondents are the proprietors of Village Mohiyudinpur Thirana, District Panipat. At the time of consolidation of holdings in the village, pro rata cut was imposed upon the proprietors and a separate pool of land was created for the common purposes of the entire village community. The petitioners and the other proprietors of the village contributed to the common pool of land of the village. After satisfactory utilization of land for common purposes, land measuring 470 kanals situated in the revenue estate remained unutilized and in the ownership and possession of the proprietors of the village as Mastarka Malkan and Jumla Malkan Hasab Rasad Raqba. The petitioners and the respondents moved an application for partition before Assistant Collector Grade-II Panipat. The Assistant Collector initiated the proceedings for partition of the land in dispute and when the proceedings had reached the stage of preparing naksha ‘bey’ five persons namely Bhartu, Sardana, Smt. Shamdei, Siri Chand and Mahabir Singh, all residents of Village Madlauda moved an application before the Assistant Collector for being impleaded as respondents in the partition application and for permission to contest the same from the initiation of the partition proceedings. The Assistant Collector partly allowed the said application and permitted them to join proceedings from the stage of naksha ‘be’ but declined from the stage of commencement of the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid applicants filed an appeal before the Collector who dismissed the same and upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector. The aforesaid applicants thereafter filed a revision petition against the order of Assistant Collector and Collector before the Commissioner Rohtak Division who made a reference to the Financial Commissioner on 13.8.1991 for recommending to the Assistant Collector for starting de novo partition proceedings. The then Financial Commissioner rejected the reference and declined to interfere with the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector. Only Bhartu out of the above five applicants filed a civil writ petition in the High Court for quashing the orders passed by Assistant Collector, Collector and Financial Commissioner. The Division Bench of High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine vide order dated 26.9.1994 holding that the share of the petitioner did not exceed 14 marla and the partition proceedings were at a final stage. After the High Court order the Assistant Collector restored the partition application and allowed the same passing the final order dated 7.8.1997. Bhartu challenged the partition proceedings before the Collector, Panipat. The Collector dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 29.9.1998. The other respondents challenged the Collector’s order before the Commissioner Rohtak Division. The Commissioner adjourned the partition proceedings sine dine vide his order dated 27.2,2001 holding that the land in dispute has been mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat in view of the amendment made in the Act of 1961 vide Act No.9 of 1992 and that the judgment of High Court dated 18.1.1995 has been set aside by the Supreme Court and the case was remanded for fresh decision. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.8.2001. The petitioners filed a CWP No. 18136 of 2001 for quashing order dated 27.2.2001 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 13.8.2001 passed by the Financial Commissioner, which was disposed of by a Division Bench vide order dated 18.8.2003 in terms of order dated 13.3.2003 passed by the Full Bench in Jai Singh’s case. Thereafter the petitioners moved an application before the Commission