VIKAS GUPTA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 03.12.2013 passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab whereby he has upheld the order of Commissioner and remanded the case to A.C. Ist Grade, Jalandhar-I for decision afresh and to carry out fair and equitable partition of land. Mr. Jindal, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that there was oral partition between the parties. The authorities lost sight of same while passing order, Annexures P7 and P10. According to him, both orders are vitiated being against law and facts. He has emphasized that petitioners have spent huge amount for development of land in their possession as would be evident from the photographs annexed along-with CM. 12104-CWP of 2014. It would be unjust to dispossess them from such land at this stage.

(2.) Plea has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent. According to him, reliance on oral partition is mis-conceived. Same is not reflected in any revenue record. In the revised mode of partition, petitioner had been allotted major chunk of land abutting the road. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner has, thus rightly set-aside the mode of partition and remanded the case to Assistant Collector Ist Grade for decision afresh.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Admittedly, both petitioners and private respondents are vendees from original shareholders. Total land comprises 72 kanals & 4 marlas. Out of this, one portion i.e. 40 kanals & 14 marlas is located in Adampur Alawalpur Road and other portion of 31 kanals 10 marlas, a little distance away. Mode of partition was finalized by Assistant Collector on 28.04.2006. Respondents No. 5 & 6 preferred appeal before Collector, Jalandhar. Same was dismissed on 05.02.2010. Private respondents thereafter filed appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. Commissioner found that A.C. Ist Grade had unjustifiably altered clause No. 1 of the mode of partition which provided that land abutting the road would be distributed amongst the co-sharers as per share/entitlement. He was aghast to noticed that Assistant Collector had completely changed the clause by adding one line that partition would be effected by maintaining the possession. No reasons were recorded while ordering such major alteration in the mode of partition. Having found that this would cause manifest injustice to other co-sharers, he remitted the case to A.C. Ist Grade for decision afresh to carry out fair and equitable partition. Order was upheld by Financial Commissioner. I find no infirmity with the orders and observations made therein. There is no substance in the plea that Assistant Collector changed the mode of partition in view of oral agreement existing between the parties. There is no revenue record to show that there was any oral partition between the parties at some stage. It is fundamental principle of partition that every co-sharer should be given land of equal value and having similar potential (see Kulvinder Kaur & ors. v. Jit Singh & ors., 2011 AIR(CC) 2894) In the instant case, mode of partition has been altered by A.C. Ist Grade without any cogent reason. This would result in inequitable distribution of land.