Possession should be respected as far as equity allows it, but not at the cost of a fair share in the most valuable land.

ORDER

K.S. Janjua, FC. - This is a reference made by Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar against the orders of Collector Nakodar (6.5.91) and AC-I Nakodar (22.9.90). Gajjan Singh applied for partition of land measuring 81 kanal 6 marla in village Akbarpur Khurd, Tehsil Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. The land was partitioned after going through various formalities on 28.9.90. The appeal was rejected by Collector and in revision, the Commissioner has recommended that the orders of subordinate Revenue Officer be set aside and the land re-partitioned.

2. The main and perhaps the only bone of contention between the parties is the land being given to them on road front. Gajjan Singh owns 2/3rd share in the land and Sadhu Singh owns 1/3rd share in the land. The following table will show the glaring deficiency in the orders of Collector and AC-I :-

Sr. No. Name Share Area Total road Front. Road front claimed Road front allotted by AC-I

1. Gajjan Singh 2/3rd 54K2M 157 karam (approx) 104 karam (approx) 37 karam (approx)

2. Sadhu Singh 1/3rd 27K2M 157 karam (approx) 52 Karam (approx) 120 karam (approx)

3. It has been claimed by respondents counsel that this irregularity has occurred because the possession of the parties is not being disturbed. The question here is that is not that of possession but the allocation of very valuable road front land. Gajjan Singh feels aggrieved because valuable road front has not been divided as per share in the holding. The possession has to be respected but not at the cost of share in the most valuable land. The land on the front road is obviously more valuable than the other land and if the parties want proportionate share of this valuable road front, a denial on the basis of maintaining possession would be a grave injustice. Possession has to be respected as far as equity allows it and not at all costs. A person who owns 2/3rd share in the land should not be given 1/3rd share of the valuable land. A more valuable land/less valuable land should be distributed in proportionate manner.

4. I see this as a fit case for accepting the reference. AC-I is directed to keep the above observations and parties aspirations in view while deciding the matter. So good land should be divided equally. If the possession is disturbed let that be so.

The partieve has been directed to appear before AC-I on 28.4.1999 at Nakodar.

Announced.