Back
2004 Supreme(P&H) 1105
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB
R.P.S. Pawar, F.C.
Chhajja Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Charan Singh and others - Respondents
ROR No. 609 of 2003.
Decided On : 28 September, 2004
For the Petitioner:Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate.
The completion of partition proceedings as specified in the Punjab Land Revenue Act ends the jurisdiction of the revenue court.
Headnote:
Partition - Punjab Land Revenue Act - The court upheld the orders of the Collector and Commissioner, finding that the partition proceedings had been completed in accordance with the Punjab Land Record Manual, and the instrument of partition had been prepared and incorporated in the record of rights, thereby ending the jurisdiction of the revenue court.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application for partition of land, which was approved and finalized. The petitioner challenged the order before the Collector and Commissioner, but both appeals were dismissed. The petitioner then filed a revision petition against the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the partition proceedings had been completed as per the Punjab Land Record Manual, and the instrument of partition had been prepared and incorporated in the record of rights, ending the jurisdiction of the revenue court. The petitioner's objections were dismissed as he had been present during all proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the partition had been made in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and whether the petitioner had been denied the opportunity to file objections against the partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The completion of partition proceedings as specified in Section 121 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act ends the jurisdiction of the revenue court. The petitioner's presence during all actions and his recorded statements indicated his awareness of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court upheld the orders of the Collector and Commissioner, dismissing the revision petition for lack of merit.
P.S. Pawar, F.C. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 22.8.2003 of Commissioner, Patiala, the order dated 21.1.2003 of Collector, Sub-Division, Ropar and as well as the order dated 21.5.2002 of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ropar under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
2. Facts of the petition in brief are that the respondent had filed an application for partition of his share out of the land in dispute. During the course of proceedings Naksha A was approved. Subsequently, mode of partition was also finalised in the presence of parties. When Naksha Y and Z were approved, the petitioner challenged that order before the Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 21.1.2003. The revision petition filed against that order was also dismissed by the Commissioner Appeals, Patiala on 22.8.2003. Hence the present revision petition.
3. Both the learned counsels have filed their arguments in writing and the same have been taken on record.
4. I have gone through the file and also arguments placed on record. The main emphasis of counsel for the petitioner is that the partition has not been made in accordance with procedure as prescribed in the Punjab Land Record Manual. This has resulted in denial of opportunity to file appeal and as well as to file objections against Naksha Bay. In this regard, he has referred to judgment of this Court in which it has been held that merely be preparing Naksha Bay and Sanad Taksim the partition proceedings did not become complete and therefore, the issuance of instrument of partition cannot result in denial of opportunity.
5. The learned counsel of the respondent has referred that the whole exercise of partition has become complete as instrument of partition has been issued on 27.6.2002. He has cited 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 739 (DB) where the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that after the instrument of partition has been prepared and partition proceedings become complete, the competent forum to challenge partition proceedings is the High Court. The present revision petition is without any basis as the petitioner has himself admitted that all actions have taken place in his presence. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
6. In this regard it will be relevant to refer to the operative portion of the order of the Collector dated 21.1.2003 which reads as under :
(Vernacular matter omitted.)
7. Similarly the relevant operative para of the order of Commissioner, Appeals reads as follow :
"I have heard the counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record carefully. The perusal of the file relating to the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade shows that Chhajja Singh had given his consent to the approval of Naksha X, Mode of Partition, Naksha Y & Z. In such a case, there is hardly anything left for this Court to interfere. Hence the revision petition is dismissed."
8. I have considered the above position and find that Collector has dismissed the appeal on the ground that since the instrument of partition has been issued and also incorporated in the jamabandi, he cannot interfere. The Commissioner has concurred with him and referred to the presence of the petitioner on all occasions and dismissed the petition. In my view, the only point which remains now to be observed is the completion of the laid down partition procedure. The petitioner in his statement has got recorded that the land where his house was built may be allotted to him. The lower Courts have categorically held that the land where his house has been constructed has been allotted to him. In addition his statement has been recorded on each occasion by the competent authority. Now when all actions have been finalised he has objected that he has not been given opportunity to file his objections and has sought protection behind the facade of ignorance when everything has occurred in his presence. With regard to the instrument of partition Section 121 clearly p
