NISHA RAM Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 29-12-06 passed by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, whereby he had dismissed the petition filed against the order dated 21-4-06 of the Collector, Balachaur in partition proceedings pending between the parties.

(2.) THE case has a history of prolonged litigation, and the initial partition application was filed in the year 1992. The details of the litigation have been spelt out in the order of Assistant Collector Grade-1, and summarized in the order of the Commissioner, and need not be repeated in this order. Suffice to say that after the Mode of Partition was finalized on 4-10-93 providing that partition would be on the basis of possession, it was set aside in appeal by the Collector, Balachaur on 1-3-94. The Assistant Collector Grade-1 again proposed Moded of Partition on 5-7-94 in similar terms, and this was again set aside by the Collector on 29-12-94 on the ground that the earlier remand order had not been complied with. This order of the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division on 28-7-99. However no further action in the matter seems to have been taken till the year 2004 when the petitioner Nisha Ram moved an application before the Assistant Collector Grade-1 that the partition proceedings should be restarted since the Commissioner had decided the matter. Upon this the Assistant Collector Grade-1 reframed the Mode of Partition on 7-1-05 and finalized the partition on its basis. On the contentious issued of possession, it was decided by the Assistant Collector Grade-1 that "front portion of the land situated on the road side be allotted proportionately to the co-sharers as per their entitlement". An appeal and subsequent revision against this partition were dismissed.

(3.) I have considered these rival contentions carefully. The petitioner's main argument is that once the Mode of Partition framed in 1994 had become final, there was no occasion for the Assistant Collector Grade-I to reframe the Mode of Partition in January 2005. This was an unlawful order and there was no need to challenge it. Against this, it has to be seen that after the Commissioner's order dated 28-7-99 the file was virtually in cold storage for many years, and the partition was restarted only in the year 2004. To my mind there is no irregularity on part of the Assistant Collector Grade-1 in revisiting the situation after a lapse of 11 years, especially since no substantial proceedings had taken place in the interim. It is note worthy that the petitioner did not challenge the Mode of Partition dated 7-1-05. As such, in view of the legal position outlined by respondents' counsel it has to be held that the Mode of Partition dated 7-1-05 had become final and the partition finalized on its basis should be upheld. Once this is so, it is clear that the revision is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.