ANGREZ SINGH @GURMEJ SINGH Vs. JEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present case has been reported by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division - Shri N.K. Arora, IAS, with his opinion that the present revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 be accepted, and the order of the Collector dated 30.11.1989 and the order of the A.C. Ist Grade, Tarn Taran be set aside and the case remanded to the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Tarn Taran for deciding the same afresh, as per the alleged compromise between the parties, as per his reference dated 13.8.1991.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, Angrez Singh alias Gurmej Singh made an application to the Tehsildar, Tarn Taran for the separation of his share from out of the land measuring 44K - 16M, comprised in Khasra Nos. mentioned in the application dated 21.3.1989, situate at Village Muradpur, Tehsil Tarn Taran, district Amritsar as per the Jamabandi for the year 1985- 86. It may be pointed out, that, in his application, the applicant-Angrez Singh, did not mention the provisions of any law, whether Section 111 or Section 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, under which this application was made; but in para (4) of this application, it has been stated that the private partition of the joint-land, had already been done, between the share-holders, through the Gram Panchayat, Muradpur. The form, in which the application was presented, is suggestive of the fact that it was intended to be made under Section 111; but, as stated in Para 2 of the Revision Petition before the Commissioner, this was made under Section 123 of the Act ibid.

(3.) AGAINST this order, Angrez Singh filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar by filing a petition dated 20.3.1990, in which it has been stated that the application for partition of land was made by Angrez Singh under Section 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and learned counsel for the respondents had made a statement that agreement dated 12.2.1989 (wrongly mentioned, as the agreement has been claimed to be dated 12.2.1984) was admitted and therefore, there was nothing for the officers below, to ignore the agreement. Here also, it may be pointed out, that in this petition, no reference had been made to the alleged agreement dated 18.4.1989 by the petitioner, in the grounds of revision petition. Similarly, in the affidavit dated 15.3.1990, attached with the 'application for stay' before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, mention has been made about the agreement dated 12.2.1984 only, and no reference had been made to the alleged second agreement dated 18.4.1989 (page 43 of the Assistant Collector's file). Again, in the application dated 15.3.1990, made by the counsel for Angrez Singh, "in the application for stay of further proceedings before the court of A.C. Ist Grade," no mention had been made about the second agreement dated 18.4.1989 and only the alleged agreement dated 12.2.1984 had been mentioned.