SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(P&H) 1267

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB
S.R. Bunger, FC.
Dalip Singh - Petitioners
Versus
Kartar Singh - Respondents
ROR No. 113 of 1986-87.
Decided On : 22 August, 1996

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate.

A khewat or khewats in which the co-sharers are not common, cannot be partitioned along with the khewat/khewats, in which the co-sharers are common.

Headnote:

PARTITION - PUNJAB LAND REVENUE ACT, 1887 - SECTION 112 - PARTIAL PARTITION - INTERPRETATION - APPLICATION FOR PARTITION OF JOINT LAND - EXCLUSION OF KHEWATS WITH COMMON CO-SHARERS - NOT A CASE OF PARTIAL PARTITION - REVENUE OFFICERS' ORDERS REJECTING APPLICATION - SET ASIDE - CASE REMANDED FOR FRESH PARTITION PROCEEDINGS.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners applied for separation of their shares from out of the joint-land. The application was rejected by the AC 1st Grade, Batala, on the ground that it was a case of partial partition. The Collector, Batala, and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, also rejected the appeal/revision petition filed by the petitioners.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application for partition was not a case of partial partition as the khewats with common co-sharers were rightly excluded from the partition-application. The orders passed by the AC 1st Grade, Batala, the Collector, Batala, and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, were set aside.

Issues: Whether the application for partition was a case of partial partition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a khewat or khewats in which the co-sharers are not common, cannot be partitioned along with the khewat/khewats, in which the co-sharers are common. Subject to the restriction and limitation of partition, as provided under Section 112 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, it would be a case of partial partition, if all the khewats with common co-sharers, are not intended to be partitioned and a khewat/khewats with common co-sharers, are left out from the partition-application.

Final Decision: The court accepted the revision petition, set aside the orders of the AC 1st Grade, Batala, the Collector, Batala, and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, and remanded the case to the Tehsildar-cum-AC 1st Grade, Batala, with a direction to resume the partition proceedings from the stage where he had left before rejecting the application.

ORDER

S.R. Bunger, FC. - The present is a revision petition dated 13.12.1986, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 23.7.1986, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

2. In brief, the facts are that the petitioners-Dalip Singh etc. made an application on 7.4.1982 for the separation of their shares from out of the joint-land measuring 415 K-19 M as per the Jamabandi for the year 1979-80, to the Tehsildar-cum-ACI, Batala. The land is situate at village Shampur, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. After taking the necessary action on the application, the mode of partition was decided on 10.6.1983. After this, respondent No. 7 - Charanjit Singh applied to the ACI on 12.9.1983 for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against respondent No. 8 - Nirmaljit Singh s/o Bakhshish Singh, who was stated to be a minor. The ex-parte proceedings were set aside on 9.1.1983. Thereafter, Nirmaljit Singh filed an objection on 20.1.1983 that the partition of land which has been sought as per application is a partial partition and should not be permitted. The plea was taken that he owned land in other khewats also but they were not included in the application for partition. The ACI accepted plea of Nirmaljit Singh and dismissed the application for partition vide his order dated 22.3.1984, with the observation that the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1979-80, produced by the counsel for Nirmaljit Singh shows that the application seeking partition of the land, is a case of partial partition. Against this order, Dalip Singh etc. filed an appeal before the Collector, Batala, who also dismissed the appeal, as per his order dated 17.1.1985, with the observation that Jamabandi for the year 1979- 80 indicates that khewat No. 142, 151, 154, 212 and 265 have not been included in the application for partition and as such, partial partition is not maintainable under the law. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who also rejected the same as per order dated 23.7.1986. Still aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition on the grounds stated in the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard as none came present on behalf of the respondents. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present petition has great merit and the same deserves to be accepted. In this case, all the three Revenue Officers below, have come to a concurrent view, which is totally wrong, untenable and contrary to the express entries in the record. Before the AC 1st Grade, Batala, the partition proceedings were at a very advanced stage and Naqsa Bay/Naqsa Zeem had already been proposed but the AC Ist Grade rejected the application for partition, on an objection raised by Nirmaljit Singh, and by treating the application for partition, as a case of partial partition. While rejecting the application, the A.C. 1st Grade did not pass a speaking order, and simply observed, that, as per the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1979-80, the application is a case of partial partition, so the same is rejected. The order of the AC Ist Grade dated 22.3.1984 is arbitrary, non-speaking and passed without proper application of mind. Unfortunately, the Collector, Batala as well as the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar also rejected the appeal/revision petition filed by the petitioners by dittoing the line of thought expressed by the AC Ist Grade, Batala, while rejecting the application for partition.

4. The Fard Hakiyat in respect of the owners in village Shampura, Hadbast No. 478, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, placed on the file of the AC Ist Grade, clearly indicates that the land measuring 415K-19M, comprised in Khewat Numbers 133 to 141, is the joint-ownership of Kartar Singh, Dalip Singh Kulbir Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Tarsem Sin
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top