Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1779
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, J.
Bhajan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab And Ors. - Respondent
CWP No. 7754 of 2019
Decided On : 20-03-2019
Charanpal Singh Bagri and Gurjit Kaur Bagri, Advocates, for the Appellant
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance possession equitably during partition proceedings and to disturb more valuable/less valuable land in a proportionate manner between the share holders.
Headnote:
Punjab Land Revenue Act - Partition Proceedings - 1887 - 118 - The court discussed the partition proceedings initiated in 1993 and the subsequent orders passed by various authorities regarding the mode of partition and possession of the parties. The key legal provisions discussed include the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Section 118, which deals with the continuation of partition proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to orders passed by various authorities regarding the mode of partition and possession of the parties. The petitioner sought to carry out the partition proceedings in view of the final order of mode of partition dated 16.01.1996, which had been upheld up to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the earlier mode of partition, which had attained finality, was withdrawn by the applicant, and a fresh application for partition was preferred in 2010. The court concluded that the partition of the land is to take place keeping in view the value of the land and each co-sharer is entitled to get the land proportionate to his share abutting the main road.
Issues: The issues revolved around the withdrawal of the earlier mode of partition, the fresh application for partition, and the proposed mode of partition that sought to disturb the possession of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the partition proceedings initiated in 1993 could not be concluded, and with the change in circumstances, a fresh mode of partition was ordered. The court emphasized the need to balance possession equitably and disturb more valuable/less valuable land in a proportionate manner between the share holders.
Final Decision: Finding no merit in the writ petition, the court dismissed the same.
JUDGMENT
Augustine George Masih, J. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 06.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab - respondent No. 1, order dated 12.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala - respondent No. 2, upholding the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Payal, dated 03.05.2010 and 11.08.2010 (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively), whereby, mode of partition by disturbing the possession of parties was proposed and subsequently, finalized. A mandamus is also sought for directing the official respondents to carry out the partition proceedings in view of the final order of mode of partition dated 16.01.1996 (Annexure P-6), which has been upheld upto the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby, possession of the parties was ordered to be kept intact.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially, an application for partition was preferred by Gurdeep Singh, father of Balwinder Singh - respondent No. 5, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in the year 1993. The mode of partition was prepared by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Payal, vide order dated 16.01.1996 (Annexure P-6), according to which, possession of the parties was to be kept intact. The said order has attained finality. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, while deciding the grievance as highlighted by Gurdeep Singh, father of respondent No. 5 - Balwinder Singh, the then applicant, passed an order dated 26.04.1999 (Annexure P-7) by disturbing the possession, against which, an appeal was preferred by Surjeet Singh - respondent No. 8 (proforma respondent herein), which was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 27.04.2000 (Annexure P-8) leading to the filing of revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who remanded the case back to the Collector, Payal, for fresh decision on the matter vide order dated 12.07.2001 (Annexure P-9). In compliance with the said order, Collector Payal, decided the appeal of Surjeet Singh afresh by allowing the same vide order dated 07.05.2002 (Annexure P-10) by holding that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was required to finalize the partition proceedings as per the approved mode of partition and the subsequent order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, disturbing the possession. Gurdeep Singh, father of respondent No. 5 - Balwinder Singh filed an appeal against the order dated 07.05.2002 (Annexure P-10) before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, who accepted the appeal vide order dated 25.03.2003 (Annexure P-11) leading to the filing of revision petition by Surjeet Singh before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, who accepted the revision petition vide order dated 20.09.2005 (Annexure P-12) setting aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, dated 25.03.2003 (Annexure P-11) and upholding the order of Collector, Payal, dated 07.05.2002 (Annexure P-10).
3. He submits that at this stage, Gurdeep Singh, father of respondent No. 5 - Balwinder Singh moved an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Payal, withdrawing his application for partition, which prayer was accepted and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Payal, vide order dated 23.01.2007 (Annexure P-13) permitted withdrawal of the application without any notice to the opposite parties including the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about the withdrawal of the application for partition, he moved an application under Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, to continue the partition proceedings, in which, mode of partition had been finalized earlier upto the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide order dated 20.09.2005 (Annexure P-12). The said application was not entertained by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade.
4. Thereafter, a fresh application for partition of the same land was moved by the petitioner with a prayer for keeping the posses
