MEHMA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India touches a dispute between two parties of the proprietary body, both claiming to succeed to the estate of one Narain Singh Jat of village Ganda. The eight petitioners assert that the partition should take place equally amongst the thirteen proprietors who constitute the proprietary body of the village while the remaining proprietors who are respondents have asserted their right to succeed in accordance with their holdings and with the view taken by the respondents all the revenue authorities have concurred.

(2.) Narain Singh of village Ganda died issueless, without a widow or a collateral on 2nd August, 1953. One Bakshish set up his title as a collateral and got a mutation in his favour. Both the petitioners and the contesting respondents as a proprietary body of village Ganda brought a suit for a declaration that they are entitled to succeed to the property of Narain Singh and a decree was granted in their favour on 12th of July, 1954. Thereafter, proceedings were taken before the revenue authorities for partition by metes and bounds under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. It seems that the proprietary body had divided itself into two groups, the petitioners asserting that the succession should be on the basis of equality while the contesting respondents stuck to the view that the entitlement should be based on the holdings in their possession, the land left by Narain Singh being treated as Shamilat Deh. The civil Court was approached once again to have this dispute settled but it was left to the revenue Courts to determine the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

(3.) Reference may be made to Section 111 of the Act which says that any joint owner of land or any joint tenant of a tenancy in which a right of occupancy subsists may apply to a Revenue Officer for partition of his share if "(b) his right to the share has been established by a decree which is still subsisting at that date." The revenue authorities are also empowered under sub-section (1) of Section 117 to refer the dispute to a competent civil Court whenever a question of title is involved with regard to partition. The Subordinate Judge passing the decree in favour of the proprietary body merely said that the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the property left by Narain Singh deceased as proprietors along with the defendant and the defendant alone is not competent to inherit the property in dispute." The defendant in that case was Bakshish and his successors had also been treated as members of the proprietary body, he having died. This decree does not specify the shares but the revenue authorities have effected a partition in accordance with the well-known principle of 'hasab rasad khewat'. The eight petitioners, who want the division to be made on basis of equality feeling aggrieved have come to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.