KARTARA Vs. RULIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction alleging that he was co-owner of the suit land and though there was a partition, a part of the land was acquired and compensation was received, effect of acquisition was not taken into account in partition proceedings and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that he was entitled to 1/6th share in the total land excluding the land acquired by the State Government. The defendants contested the suit.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred under the provisions of Section 158(2)(VII) and (XVIII) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 . The appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court holding that an erroneous decision by the Revenue Officer could not affect the rights of the parties in the joint land and the decision of the Revenue Authority is not final. It was held that since a part of the land had been acquired and compensation had been received as per admitted shares, effect thereof was required to be reflected in the partition, which had not been done and therefore, the partition without taking into account the effect of acquisition of the land was not conclusive.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court had rightly held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred in the matter of partition and the decision of Revenue Court was rightly held to be final and therefore, view of the appellate Court is erroneous.