GONDA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some joint-owners of the land in dispute have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, respondent Nos. 1 and 4, during the proceedings for the partition of this land.

(2.) The two petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 own the land in dispute jointly. Shri Harbans Singh, respondent No. 2, who has a 1/4th share had applied to the Revenue Court for the partition of the land. A scheme of partition (Annexure 'A') had been agreed upon. The possessions of the co-sharers were to be respected and were to be left undisturbed as far as possible. The entries in the latest jamabandi were to be taken into con sideration while judging as to who was in possession of a particular field or khasra number. It is the manner in which this scheme of partition has been applied by the Revenue Officers that has created the controversy between the parties. Such a scheme can only guide the Revenue Court in affecting the partition of the land in metes and bounds. There has necessarily to be an adjustment where the co-sharers are found to be in possession of lesser or bigger areas than would actually fall to their share. If one of the co-sharers was not in possession of an inch of land, as had been contended before the Collector when he passed the order dated 30-4-1971 (Annexure 'A') then it would be obvious that the other co-sharers would have to surrender a part of the lands in their possession to make good the share of the joint-owner who had been kept out of possession. In the impugned order, Annexure 'C', the Commissioner Jullundur Division has observed amongst other things that the mode of partition had been duly approved and was never appealed against by either party. The Collector had made equal distribution of the land without doing any injustice to the party. The partition had been effected according to the approved mode of partition. The entries in the jamabandis had been taken into account and the land in dispute was shown to be in possession of the joint-holders. The Collector was, however, found to have transgressed his powers in ordering changes in the kurrahs of the parties. The appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was, therefore, accepted by the Commissioner. A revision petition filed by the petitioners against the Commissioner's orders had been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1. These orders have been passed by the Revenue Authorities in honest exercise of their discretion and they were within their jurisdiction in passing these orders. The mere fact that somebody else might have passed a different order would not imply that the order was illegal or without jurisdiction. This civil writ petition cannot be used as an appeal against the orders passed by the respondents within the four corners of the limits of their authority.

(3.) I see no grounds for interference and dismiss the writ petition with costs.