PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. SAMPURAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 6 revision filed against a common order dated 14.8.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar whereby he dismissed the revision petitions filed against the order dated 5.7.1996 passed by the Collector, Jalandhar-II.

(2.) ACCORDING to the facts of the case, Sampuran Kaur and Mohinder Kaur, respondents filed 6 applications for partition of land comprised in Khewat No. 107-10, 112 and 113 situated in village Mithapur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The petitioners were issued summons. The notice was also published in the newspapers and Mushtri Munadi was also done. Since the petitioners failed to appear in the court, ex parte proceedings were ordered against them on 22.3.1994. The Mode of Partition was sanctioned on 23.5.94. The petitioners moved an application dated 27.6.94 for impleading them as a party. The Assistant Collector allowed them to join the proceedings from the stage of the order. Objections were filed by the petitioners and the partition was finally sanctioned in 1.2.95. Aggrieved by this partition order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Collector, Jalandhar mainly on the ground that they have constructed house in Khasra No. 7//9, 26 and 27 and this land has not been given to them. Further, the possession was unnecessarily disturbed and they were not given opportunity to be heard, since the Mode of Partition was sanctioned even before their joining as a party. The Collector, vide order dated 5.7.1996 dismissed the appeals. Further revision petitions were dismissed vide impugned order of the Commissioner, necessitating the present revision petitions.

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel and have gone through the record. It is a fact that the application dated 27.6.94 filed by the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte proceedings ordered against then was accepted, but they were allowed to join the proceedings only w.e.f. 4.8.94 i.e. the date of decision of their application. Since the Mode of Partition was already sanctioned, this could not give any positive benefit to the petitioners since their objections were not considered on merits. It appears to be in the interest of justice that when the application of a party for setting aside the ex parte proceedings is accepted, they should be allowed to join the case from the beginning. It was only appropriate for the Assistant Collector Ist Grade that while accepting the application for setting aside the ex parte order, the objections of the petitioners should have been considered. Acceptance or rejection of the objections is subject matter of merits, but the denial of consideration of the objections clearly amounts to denial of justice to the petitioners. Without considering other points, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not been given due opportunity of being heard. The unfair treatment given to them for being absent from the proceedings is disproportionate to their fault. I, therefore, accept the revision petitions, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jalandhar, with the direction that the case be decided afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The parties have been directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jalandhar On 3.5.2004. The parties be communicated. Revision allowed.