LAWS(P&H)-2005-11-15

GURMUKH SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

Decided On November 24, 2005
GURMUKH SINGH Appellant
V/S
PARAMJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar dated 23.1.2003 vide which he dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the Collector dated 30.3.2001. Vide this order the Collector had set aside the order of the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade dated 31.5.2000 vide which the mode of partition had been framed in the partition proceedings pertaining to the land. The Collector had directed the mode of partition be reframed by mentioning, that the partition should be done according to the quality and value of the land. Both the parties should be given front portion in equal shares after visiting the spot. The details of the case are contained in the orders of revenue Courts below and need not be gone into again.

(2.) ON 12.4.2005 case came up for hearing and the counsels for both the parties were directed to file written arguments. Written arguments have been received.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents it was urged that the Commissioner and the Collector had rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade on the sound principle that the land should be distributed to the co-sharers in accordance with its quality and value. As regard the issue of title there was no such issue in this case. The private partition if any, should have been recorded in the revenue papers, which was not done. The Commissioner has rightly observed that no preliminary objections in respect of title have been raised by the petitioners before the Assistant Collector-Ist Grade and therefore these could not be raised at the stage of finilization of mode of partition. It was further argued that in accordance with order dated 30.3.2001 the Assistant Collector had visited the spot and reframed the mode of partition vide order dated 25.3.2003, against which an appeal filed by the petitioners was pending before the Collector. In view of this the present revision was therefore infructuous. It was urged that the revision petition should be dismissed.