COL. PRITHIPAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19125 of 1991, 3705 and 3719 of 1992. In all these petitions, petitioner has impugned the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh dated August 19, 1991 disposing of three revision petitions by a common judgment since common question of facts and law arose for determination.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are brothers. They are recorded as joint owners of agricultural land situate in village Khurla Kingra, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Respondent No. 2 filed an application of partition of the joint land. The petitioner was arrayed as respondent to the application. He took objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the joint land stood partitioned in a family settlement. He further stated that since a question of title had arisen, the revenue officer should stay his hand from partitioning the joint property till the civil Court adjudicates upon the question of title. The Collector, on appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had prima facie failed to establish that there was any private partition. He rejected the objection to the maintainability of the application for partition. On appeal, the Collector's order was upheld by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division who in his order dated February 13, 1991 gave the following firm finding of the facts :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the moment in an application for partition a defence is set up that the parties had partitioned the joint land in a family partition the revenue officer could not proceed with the partition application till the question is decided by the Civil court. The submission is not tenable. Merely raising the question will not debar the revenue officer from proceeding with the partition application. The plea has to be established by producing material in support of it. In the instant case, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) have given a positive finding of fact that the plea that there was a family partition is not supported by any evidence, on the contrary the land in dispute is recorded as joint ownership of the parties.