SWARN KAUR Vs. HARDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 filed against the order dated 9-4-03 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division in the matter of partition of the land situated in village Karnana, Tehsil and District S.B.S. Nagar. Since the points of law and fact involved in both these petitions are similar, they shall be disposed of by this common order; and a copy thereof be placed on each file.

(2.) THE brief facts of the cases are that Hardial Singh etc., petitioners in ROR No. 562/03, filed three applications for partition before the Assistant Collector Grade-I. These were consolidated, a joint Mode of Partition was proposed and confirmed, and the partition was finally sanctioned on 28-2-01. Four appeals were filed against this order before the Collector, S.B.S. Nagar who himself inspected the spot and ordered that 4 kanals of land on the south-eastern side of khasra No. 15/2 should be allotted to Lakhvir Singh etc., respondents, and an equal amount of land be deducted from their share of khasra Nos. 10, 11, 13/1, 14/1 and 15/1. Thereafter four petitions were filed before the Commissioner, who accepted the one filed by Lakhvir Singh etc., rejected the other three petitions and set aside the orders of both the Assistant Collector Grade-I and the Collector, thereby ordering fresh partition of the land in dispute. This is the order new under challenge.

(3.) THE contentions noted above were reiterated by Counsel for parties when the cases were taken up for consideration. Counsel for Swarn Kaur etc. only pointed out that their entire land holding should be made in one 'tak' instead of the two as proposed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I. On behalf of Hardial Singh etc. it has been contended that the orders passed by both the Assistant Collector Grade-I and Collector were detailed ones, passed after inspecting the spot in question and assessing the ground realities. It was only a result of such inspection that the Collector had ordered a minor revision in the petition finalized by the Assistant Collector Grade-I. Even though the Collector had passed an order which substantially benefited the respondents Lakhvir Singh etc., yet the petitioners had no objection to it since it was based on an objective assessment conducted at the spot. The Commissioner however had set aside these orders without any substantial reason. Counsel pointed out that a major reason weigthing with Commissioner was that the 'tak' of Lakhvir Singh etc. should not have been prepared jointly with Swarn Kaur etc. However, this argument should not have been taken into account at all because both these parties had themselves asked for a joint 'tak' before the Assistant Collector Grade-I.