HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders marked as Annexure 'E' dated May 16, 1967 of the Collector, Bhatinda, Annexure 'F' dated September 11, 1968 of the Commissioner, Patiala. Annexure 'H' dated May 20, 1970 of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bhatinda, Annexure 'I' dated August 16, 1971 of Collector, Bhatinda, Annexure 'J' dated September 6, 1972 of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and Annexure 'K' dated September 28, 1972 of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner had a Joint Khata with respondent No. 4 and others in village Mansa Kalan. Respondent No. 4 made an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bhatinda, on December 13, 1953 for partitioning the aforesaid Khata. In 1954, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had entered into a compromise to effect partition of the land privately. A report had been made about the private partition to the Patwari and it was entered in Roznamcha Waqiati. The Tehsildar, by an order dated April 20, 1954 recorded the aforesaid compromise between the parties and ordered that the file be sent to the E.A.C., Bhatinda for being consigned to the record room. In 1959-60, consolidation proceedings started in the village and land was allotted to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and other co-sharers jointly. Respondent No. 4 sold some area to different persons in which he represented himself to be the owner of those lands on the basis of partition arrived at between the co-sharers. Some land was acquired by the Punjab Government for construction of Water Works in which 21 Bighas of petitioner's land and 61 Bighas out of respondent No. 4 was acquired. Respondent No. 4 with ulterior motive, filed an application for partition of the joint Khata in which he impleaded the petitioner and his brothers and other persons including those to whom he sold land, as parties. The petitioner and, his brothers contested the application and inter alia pleaded that the land had already been partitioned by a family agreement and the Revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to partition the same again. The plea of the petitioner was accepted by the Assistant Collector and he ordered that the question of title be got decided by a Civil Court. The copy of his order dated July 11, 1966 is annexure 'D'. Respondent No. 4 went up in appeal before the Collector, Patiala, who reversed the finding of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case to him for partitioning the land. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division Patiala, who dismissed the same on September 11, 1968 (Annexure 'F'). A revision petition against the order of the Commissioner to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab was dismissed by him in limine. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector prepared mode of partition under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On January 7, 1970, the petitioner moved an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bhatinda to the effect that the application for partition filed by respondent No. 4 was for partial partition and as such it was not legally maintainable. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Assistant Collector in spite of the fact that respondent No. 4 had admitted that some land had been left out from partition proceedings by him (Respondent No. 4). The order of the Assistant Collector dated May 20, 1970 rejecting the objection of the petitioner is Annexure 'H'. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Collector, Bhatinda against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector, who vide his order dated August 16, 1971 (Annexure 'I'), dismissed the same. The petitioner then went up in revision before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala against the order of the Collector, who dismissed the same by his order dated September 6, 1972 (Annexure 'J'). A revision petition against the order of the Commissioner to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh was rejected by him vide his order dated September 28, 1972 (Annexure 'K'). He has now challenged all the aforesaid orders in the writ petition before this Court.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 has contested the writ petition. He has, inter alia, pleaded in the return that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and has not given all the facts. The entry on which the petitioner is basing his claim was not signed by Shrimati Raj Kaur, who was an owner in the joint Khata to the extent of 1/2 and the same was also not signed by the brothers of the petitioner. The alleged compromise could not be implemented on account of the aforesaid facts. The Khata has been shown jointly uptill now as the land was never partitioned. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the order of the District Judge by which the award was given by him for the land acquired by the State of Punjab and the compensation was paid for the land acquired by both the parties in equal shares. The order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab alleged to have been passed by him in 1969, by which he affirmed the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated September 11, 1968 was not challenged then in this Court and, therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the orders of the Collector and Commissioner dated May 16, 1967 and September 11, 1968 now. It is also stated that the petitioner is in possession of 8 acres of land in excess to his share and, therefore, he has filed this writ petition in order to delay the proceedings which he has been doing successfully for the last so many years.