A Revenue Officer can decline a partition application where there is a title dispute, and partition of joint agricultural land is required to be done Khewat-wise, with a single application for partition permissible only where all the co-sharers in the Khewats are common.

ORDER

S.R. Bunger, F.C. - The present case has been reported by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 28.7.1995, passed by the Collector Sub-Division, Malout, in a case of partition of joint- agricultural-land, with his recommendation, that, the present revision petition be accepted; the order dated 28.7.1995, passed by the Collector, Malout, as well as, the order dated 7.3.1995, passed by the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Malout, be set aside, and the case be remanded to the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Malout, with a direction that, the share of the petitioners be separated from out of the joint-land with the respondents, as per his reference dated 8.10.1997.

2. The brief facts of this case are, that, Gurbachan Singh etc., have moved an application on 17.5.1994, before the Tehsildar-cum-A.C.Ist Grade, Malout, for the separation of their shares, from out of the joint-land, measuring 263 Kanals and 14 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 33, 43, 44 and 49, situate at village Khunan Kalan, Tehsil Muktsar, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1987- 88. On this application, the respondents No. 1-5, Avtar Singh etc., had raised an objection, that a civil dispute inter se the respondents 1-5 (Gurcharan Singh etc. v. Avtar Singh etc.) was pending in the court of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Muktsar, as such, a question of title, was involved in the land to be partitioned. Besides, the appellants-Gurbachan Singh etc., had sought partition of their shares in all the four (4) Khewats by making only one application, which was not permissible under the law, because the co-sharers in all the four Khewats were not common. On the basis of these objections, the respondents had prayed that, the application for partition be refused. The A.C. Ist Grade, Malout, while agreeing with the objections on behalf of the respondents, had rejected this application for partition vide his order dated 7.3.1995.

Aggrieved by this order, Gurbachan Singh etc., had filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Malout, on the grounds, that, so far as the title of the appellants in the land to be partitioned is concerned, the same had already been finally decided by the Addl. District Judge, Faridkot vide his judgment and decree dated 27.2.1990, and so far as the pending civil suit captioned as :- Gurcharan Singh etc. v. Avtar Singh etc. was concerned, it was the inter se dispute between the brothers, and as such, there should be no difficulty in partitioning the share of the appellants, from out of the joint-land. A prayer was made to set aside the order passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, Malout. This appeal was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Malout, vide his order dated 28.7.1995. Against this order, the petitioners-Gurbachan Singh etc., had filed the revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, as a result of which, the present case has been reported by him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 have been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the opinion, that, the present revision petition deserves to be rejected; and, the reference merits to be declined.

In the given circumstances of the case, both, the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malout, as well as, the Collector Sub-Division, Malout, as per their concurrent orders had rightly rejected the application for partition, moved by the petitioners, because, the title of land to be partitioned was disputed. Now, the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Muktsar, vide his order dated 8.8.1995, has settled the dispute inter se the respondent No. 3-5, regarding the extent of their shares in the land to be partitioned. It may be true that, the title of the petitioners in the lan