An order of partition passed by a competent authority will not be modified or reversed unless it suffers from material irregularity or illegality or results in miscarriage of justice.

S.R. Bunger, FC. - The present is a reference under section 16(3) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, made by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, as per his order dated 30.3.1994 recommending that the order dated 3.4.1992, passed by the Collector-cum-S.D.O. (C), Batala in a partition case, be either modified or reversed.

2. The facts of this case are that, respondent No. 1 Shangara Singh made an application to the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Batala on 27.7.1987, for the separation of his 1/4th share, from out of the land measuring 179K-7M, situate at village Rai Chak, tehsil Batala as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85. The details of the Khasra Nos. are given in the application for partition. The A.C. Ist Grade, Batala approved the mode of partition as per his order dated 21.5.1991, and further ordered the partition of land in accordance with the mode of partition, by preparing Naqsa Bay as per his order dated 9.8.1991.

3. It may be pointed out that the A.C. Ist Grade, Batala does not seem to be knowing the difference between Naqsa Bay and Naqsa Zeem. In his order dated 9.8.1991, the A.C. Ist Grade has recorded that Naqsa Zeem has been received from the Kunungo and the petitioner-Shangara Singh does not have any objection to the partition of land as per Naqsa Zeem. The A.C. Ist Grade, Batala seems to have confused Naqsa Zeem with Naqsa Bay, although the contents of his aforesaid decision are in order. It may be further pointed out that Naqsa Bay is prepared in Form PTN-2 (with reference to paragraph 18.12 of the Punjab Land Record Manual), which is a statement comparing area by share in the joint-khata, and the area allotted to the parties seeking partition; and Naqsa Zeem, is prepared in Form PTN-3 (with reference to paragraph 18.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual), which is an instrument of partition on a stamped paper, which is prepared to give effect to the order of partition, after any appeal, filed against Naqsa Bay has been decided or the period prescribed for filing an appeal has expired. So, in this case the Naqsa Zeem has wrongly been mentioned by the A.C. Ist Grade, Batala as well as the Collector, Batala in their orders, which in fact, should be read as Naqsa Bay. Naqsa Zeem is still to be prepared and sanctioned, which should have been prepared by A.C. Ist Grade, Batala after the appeal was rejected by the Collector, Batala. Against the order of A.C. Ist Grade dated 9.8.1991, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Batala on the grounds mentioned in the petition dated 23.9.1991, but the same was rejected by the Collector as per his order dated 3.4.1992. Against this order, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on the grounds stated in the petition dated 5.5.1992. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, as per his order dated 30.3.1994 has recommended that this revision be accepted in view of his observations. The operative part of the Commissioners order reads as follows:-

"I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have also perused the file. From the arguments advanced it is to be made out there are trees in Khasra No. 47/12, 14 and 15 and there are trees also in Khasra No. 47/12/2. The value of these trees have not been calculated. The tubewell installed by the petitioners in Khasra No. 47/15 has been allotted to the respondent. I find that the A.C. Ist Grade has not passed a speaking order and has not discussed all the major issues. Similarly, the points raised by the petitioner in his appeal before the Collector have also not been suitably dealt. I have, therefore, no option but to recommend this revision to the Financial Commissioner Punjab for acceptance in view of my observations discussed above."

4. The learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view