PURAN SINGH Vs. SURAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 16(i) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987 has been preferred against the order (29.5.2000) of Additional Commissioner (A), Jalandhar Division, passed in a partition matter.

(2.) AN application for partition of joint holding was filed by Surat Singh before AC-I, Jalandhar. MOP was proposed on 3.8.1988. Against this appeal was preferred by Respondent No. 1 to Collector pleading that land measuring 105K 06M received in exchange by the petitioner in lieu of land measuring 41K 09M be also included in MOP raising total land holding to 198K 11M instead of 134 Kanals. Appeal was accepted by the Collector (9.1.1989). Further appeal and revision preferred before Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were dismissed. Stand of the petitioner was also not acceded to in civil litigation upto High Court. AC-I then ordered fresh MOP (20.4.1994) regarding land measuring 198K 6M. Appeal and revision of petitioner against this order were dismissed by Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. Final partition of land measuring 198K-06M was then sanctioned by AC-I (31.3.1995).

(3.) SH . M.S. Kang, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner and apart from reiterating the grounds taken in revision petitioner, argued mainly on the point that order of AC-I (31.3.1995) is nullity in the eyes of law because same has been passed during pendency of appeal/revision. After passing order on 20.6.1994, AC-I continued with partition proceedings and sanctioned partition on 31.3.1995 while revision against MOP was still pending in the Court of Commissioner. Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate representing Respondent No. 1 contended that partition has become final and Sanad Takseem has already been issued. Against final partition no appeal/revision lies unless it is not in conformity with MOP. No such violation has been pointed out. He submitted further that other points raised by the petitioner have already been settled upto the level of Financial Commissioner and High Court. The petitioner is unnecessarily agitating the matter without pointing out any material irregularity in the partition order.