PIARA SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated 10.4.2001 vide which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioner against the order of the Collector, Ludhiana (West) dated 24.4.1997. Vide this order the Collector, Ludhiana (West) had dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 5.3.1997 of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide which the Assistant Collector had ordered the continuation of partition proceedings in the present case despite an objection on behalf of the petitioners that there were Civil Court Proceedings going on between the parties regarding the ownership of land and, therefore, a dispute of title existed between the parties. The details of the case are contained in the orders of the Revenue Officers below and need not be gone into again.

(2.) ON 21.12.2005 the Counsel of both the parties appeared before me and were directed to file written arguments in the case, and orders were reserved. Written arguments have now been filed by the Counsels. On behalf of the petitioners it was argued that the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade is a non-speaking order, not based on merits. It was urged that it has been proved on the record that the petitioners are in possession of the entire land since 27.01.1967 on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 27.01.1967 executed by Shri Tarlok Singh, Jagmel Singh and others regarding and the entire land, and the agreement to sell has been admitted by the respondents. Actual sale deeds of land measuring 47 Kanal 15 Marla out of the total land of 68 Kanal 4 Marla have been executed in favour the petitioners, and the petitioners are in possession of the remaining land i.e. 20 Kanal 9 Marla. The Assistant Commissioner had ignored the fact that a Civil Suit for declaration had been filed by the petitioners, in the course of which the Civil Judge Junior Division had granted an injunction in the matter, restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioners. As per the revenue law, therefore, the Assistant Collector should have either proceeded to determine the issue of title of his own, or should have stayed the proceedings pending resolution of the issue in the Civil Court. This, however, was not done. Further the Collector had wrongly dismissed the appeal by ignoring these facts. As regards the order of the Commissioner, it was urged that this was internally inconsistent. The Commissioner had in para 4 of his order observed that "from the perusal of the record it is revealed that a civil suit is pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana and the Court has decided the injunction application 4.8.1997 whereby it is observed that the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute". The Commissioner had further observed that "if the Civil Court has passed the orders to maintain status quo, then the parties cannot do anything with regard to this land in dispute and are bound to maintain status quo in orders". It is clear from this that the Commissioner was of the view that the status quo be maintained, and further partition proceedings be stopped. However, in that case the Commissioner should have accepted the revision and set aside the orders of the Collector and Assistant Collector and ordered that no further partition proceedings be carried out till the issue of title was decided by the Civil Court. The Commissioner on the other hand dismissed the petition, which had the affect of upholding the orders of the Collector and Assistant Collector. This was internally inconsistent. It was, therefore, urged that the orders of the Commissioner be set aside alongwith the orders of the Collector and Assistant Collector 1st Grade, and further partition proceedings be stopped.

(3.) AFTER having gone through the case record and the arguments of the Counsels, I am of the view that since the Civil litigation in the matter had been finally settled and the title of the respondents in the land is clear. There is no case for stopping the partition proceedings. This position had not been challenged by the petitioners. In view of the above revision petition is dismissed. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.