Partition proceedings under the Punjab Land Revenue Act do not allow introduction of new objections after the mode of partition has been finalized, reinforcing that established practices must be adhered to in subsequent appeals.

N. Bala Baskar, F.C.

Jai Ram and others, filed an application for partition of 144 kanals 6 marlas land situated in Village Umra, tehsil Hansi, district Hisar before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hansi. Teka filed his objections to Naksha 'Kha'. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade directed, vide his order dated 12.10.2000, that Naksha 'Kha' be amended to the extent that keeping in view the share and possession of the parties, killa No. 242/2 should be attached to the Kurra of Teka and Killa No. 78/10 should be attached to the Kurra of the applicant and the adjustment in area according to the share of each party, should be made from the adjoining killa Nos. and that no other alteration should be made in Naksha 'Kha'. The amended Naksha 'Kha' was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 23.11.2000. Teka filed an appeal against this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum- Collector, Hansi, who dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 16.10.2001. Teka filed a revision petition against the order of Collector, Hansi before the Commissioner, Hisar Division. Commissioner, Hisar Division, found, vide his order dated 20.5.2003, that the revision had partial merits. He held that "as the impugned land comprised several Khewats, the share-holders had a right to be assigned land in every Khewat, as this was specifically provided in the mode of partition". He accepted the revision petition partially and remanded the case to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hansi, for partition by assigning land to revisionist in every Khewat. Aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner, Jai Ram and others have filed this revision petition.

2. The revision petition was admitted on 6.10.2003. While admitting the revision, the operation of the order dated 20.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, and further partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hansi were stayed till further orders. Tahsildar, Hansi reported on 25.2.2004 that Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 refused to accept notice saying that they had no concern with this case. A similar report dated 25.10.2004 was received from Tahsildar, Hansi that Smt. Vidya Devi and Smt. Kamla Devi, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 respectively, also refused to accept notice saying that they have nothing to do with this case. Therefore, proceedings were conducted ex parte against these respondents. Arguments were heard on 8th February, 2005.

3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/petitioner argued that the Commissioner had erred in remanding the case back to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hansi. Once the mode of partition is accepted and not objected to, the rest of the proceedings should be carried out in accordance with the mode of partition. In the present case, Teka had not objected to the mode of partition. Since Naksha 'Kha' was prepared in accordance with the mode of partition, he cannot object to Naksha 'Kha'. He also quoted the authority of 1992 PLJ 45, wherein the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that if "the partition proceedings are permitted to go on till finalisation of the mode of partition, then the consequential orders which only implement what has been determined earlier cannot be the subject matter of appeals". The mode of partition drawn up by Assistant Collector IInd Grade does not mention allotment of land in every Khewat. This plea was raised by Teka only during arguments and cannot be permitted in view of Order 6 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 2153 of 1986 (Parveen Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and