GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants and respondent No. 4 are the collaterals and co-owners in a joint khewat. The appellants filed an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 for partition of land in the year 2009. In that application, it was stated that land in dispute measuring 174 kanals 8 marlas is joint between the parties and it be partitioned taking note of quality of that land. It was further stated that the land, which is situated adjoining the mettaled road is more valuable as compared to the land situated away from that road. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Gurdaspur afforded an opportunity to the appellants to get their statements recorded in support of the averments made in their application. When the appellants failed to do so, following order was passed on 17.7.2009:-

(2.) In response to that order, an affidavit of Joginder Singh has been filed today in the Court, which is taken on record. It is stated therein that houses of both the parties are situated in khasra Nos. 31/3/1 & 31/3/2. The mettaled road comes to an end about one acre before the houses of both the parties and thereafter three karams passage has been left as an access to those houses. Site plan has also been placed on record depicting the above said fact.

(3.) To strengthen an argument that the land was partitioned way back in the year 1996, reliance has been placed upon a document (Annexure R4/2/T) dated 14.6.1996 vide which land falling in two khasra numbers was exchanged amongst the parties. Those khasra numbers are situated in the tasks now going to be allotted to the appellants and respondent No. 4. Reading of that exchange deed indicates that allotment of land is going to be made to the appellants and the respondent No. 4 as per their possession, which is shown in the Aks Shajra. It appears that the parties are in settled possession of their respective blocks of land that is why only possession of some land was exchanged to make the land, in their possession, in compact blocks. The learned Single Judge has looked into this aspect when dismissing writ petition of the appellants, referred to above, on' 16.11.2012. Relevant portion of that order reads thus:-