JOGINDER PAL Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with a prayer to review the order dated 31.3.1994 passed by Sh. J.S. Kesar, IAS, the then Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab accepting the revision petition No. 106 of 2004 and setting aside the order dated 28.1.2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and remanding the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Balachaur with the direction that the partition be done as per the amended Mode of Partition, which already stands sanctioned.

(2.) THE review petitioner has contended that the observation of the learned Financial Commissioner that "on the facts given and agreed to by both the parties" is totally wrong as no point of time any consent was shown or applicants-respondents were ever agreed, rather it was submitted that the petitioners as well as the applicants-respondents have been given the frontage according to their share and clause stipulated in the mode of partition because frontage was to be given keeping in view the structure and commercial area in possession of the petitioners. Since the entire area is commercial area and structure on the area of brick kiln was given to the petitioners, therefore, according to that the frontage was given to the petitioners. It is also worth submitting here with the share of the petitioners comes to 52 kanal 1 marla and thus, keeping in view the commercial area and structure given to the petitioners, the frontage of 54 karams was given to the petitioners and similarly, share of the respondents-applicants comes to 1/2 share and according to that the applicants were given 114 karams. It was also specifically brought to the notice of the then learned Financial Commissioner that as far as claim of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 is concerned, since they were in possession of the area and structure, therefore, their possession was already upheld as there was a civil litigation between the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 7 and thus, keeping in view their holding and share the frontage was given. Thus, there was no deficiency in frontage.

(3.) THE review petitioner further contended that once the mode of partition dated 26.8.1996 was accepted and partition proceedings were finalized in pursuance to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court whereby revision petition was accepted not once but twice and no appeal was filed against the mode of partition and further at no point of time the factum of amended mode of partition was brought to the affected parties, in that eventuality the amended mode of partition, if any, loses its significance. Moreover, there were no orders passed by any competent authority for framing a new mode of partition. Thus, it was specifically submitted that the alleged amended mode of partition is having no bearing on the case as the mode of partition was framed way back on 26.8.1996 which has attained finality. Thus, remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector for deciding the same afresh vide order under review, tantamount to reopening the entire matter which stands already decided up to this Hon'ble Court after dealing with the objections raised by petitioners, but the learned Financial Commissioner nowhere recorded even an iota of word in respect of the arguments and contentions raised by the applicant- respondents and rather set up a totally new case altogether, which is not warranted in the eyes of law.