No appeal or revision is competent against the Instrument of Partition, as it is the final stage in a partition case.

S.R. Bunger, FC. - The present is a Revision Petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887, against order Dated 20.1.1988 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala.

2. Brief facts of this case are, that, Gurdial Singh S/o Teja Singh had made an application under Section 111 of the Act ibid, to the A.C. 1st Grade Malerkotla, on 31.8.1982 for the separation of his 1/2 share, from out of the joint-land, measuring 259 Kanals-19 Marlas, situate at Village Battua, Sub-Tehsil Dhuri, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1976-77. After initiating necessary action, Naksa Zeem was approved by the A.C. 1st Grade, Malerkotla on 6.8.1984. Against this order, Balwant Singh had filed an appeal before the Collector Malerkotla, which was dismissed as per Collectors order dated 13.11.1984. Thereafter, the A.C. 1st Grade, Malerkotla had drawn up the Instrument of Partition on 16.4.1985, under Section 121 of the Act ibid, after the partition was completed. Against the Collectors order dated 13.11.1984, the Revision Petition filed by Balwant Singh, before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala was rejected, as per Commissioners order dated 20.1.1988. The present petition filed by Balwant Singh dated 10.2.1988 is directed against he Commissioners order dated 20.1.1988.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and after though perusal of the record, I am of the view, that the present Revision Petition has no merit and deserves to be rejected, as infructuous. After a partition is completed, the Revenue Officer is required to draw up the Instrument of Partition, incorporating the facts about the partition of land including the land allotted to the share-holders, after the partition.

4. In this case, the Partition was completed with the approval of Naksa Zeem By the A.C. 1st Grade, Malerkotla on 6.8.1984, and the appeal filed by Balwant Singh against this order was also dismissed. Thereafter, the A.C. 1st Grade, Malerkotla had prepared the Instrument of Partition on 16.4.1985. It is a settled proposition of law that no appeal or revision is competent, against the Instrument of Partition and drawing up of the Instrument of Partition, is the final stage in a partition case. In view of this, the order dated 20.1.1988 of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala was redundant and the present Revision Petition filed against the Commissioners order, is infructuous.

5. In view of the above discussion, the present Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous.