BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that respondents 2 to 4 filed four applications seeking partition of the land in dispute in this writ petition before the Tehsildar, Nawanshahar. The Tehsildar after inspecting the spot and hearing objections of the applicants as also the petitioners proposed the mode of partition keeping the possession of the parties intact. This order was challenged by the petitioners in appeal before the Collector, which was, however, dismissed on 30.3.1999. Thereafter the petitioners approached the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division by way of a revision petition. In the proceedings before the Commissioner in revision, it transpired that earlier when the petitioners had raised a dispute with the respondents regarding partition of the land in question, a compromise had been effected by the Panchayat on 7.2.1998 which bore the signatures of the petitioners. The Commissioner showed the compromise to the petitioners who accepted their thumb impressions on the same. Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed the revision with the following observations :-

(2.) A reading of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner extracted above shows that the same was passed on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners who drew the attention of the Financial Commissioner to the compromise dated 7.2.1998 between the parties and said that the same was not being acted upon at the site. To this since learned counsel for the respondents did not have any objection, a direction was given by the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation to implement the said agreement and in case some minor dislocation was necessary, the same should be done so that the compromise is fully acted upon.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners firstly argued that the statement attributed to the petitioners in paragraph 4 of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner was never made by him. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has been vehemently refuted by learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the statement as recorded in the order of the Financial Commissioner was made by learned counsel for the petitioners and proceedings in the order have been correctly recorded.