KULWANT SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 26.7.2001 of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, vide which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.6.2000 of the Collector Bholath.

(2.) AS per brief facts of the case, the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bholath for partition of land measuring 222 K-3M as per Jamabandi for the year 1995-96 for the land situated in village Begowal, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala. The respondent No. 1 appeared and filed written statement. Naqsha 'T' was prepared and objections were invited. On the basis of objections submitted by the petitioner, the amended Naqsha 'T ' was prepared and the Mode of Partition was suggested on 26.8.1999, which was subsequently confirmed on 31.8.99. Naqsha 'Zeem' was got prepared. Since there was no objection raised to that, the partition was sanctioned on 30.9.1999. Aggrieved by this order, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed appeal before the Collector, Bholath who remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for passing afresh order after hearing the parties and after inspecting the spot. Since the petitioner did not present himself before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the partition application was dismissed in default on 5.9.2000. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar against the order dated 28.6.2000, vide which the Collector had remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. He took the plea in the appeal that respondents No. 1 to 3 had full knowledge of the partition proceedings since Amar Singh had filed written statement before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. However, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) finding no irregularity in the order dated 28.6.2000 of the Collector, dismissed the appeal, necessitating the present revision petition in this court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has pointed out that all the co-sharers have been clubbed together, whereas each Khewat is to be partitioned separately and a separate application is needed in each case. The counsel has pointed out that Davinder Singh, one of the respondents was out of India from 4.3.99 to August, 99, hence no order passed during this period will be binding on him. He has further pointed out that the respondents were not proceeded against ex-parte. There was no order on record to this effect. The partition proceedings against Davinder Singh cannot be held valid because he was not properly served. The counsel has further pointed out that Kulwant Singh, petitioner has already sold his land to one Joginder Singh and the petitioner has no interest, whatsoever, in the land now. He has, therefore, pleaded for dismissal of the revision petition.