KARTAR SINGH Vs. KUNDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present case has been reported by Sh. N.K. Arora, IAS, Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, with his opinion that the order dated 3.12.1987, passed by the Collector, Patti as well as the order dated 31.8.1987, passed by the Tehsildar-cum-A.C.I., Patti be set aside, by accepting the present revision petition, as per his reference dated 7.8.1989. The operative part of the reference reads as follows :-

(2.) IN brief, the facts in this case are that Kundan Singh son of Mit Singh, Harjit Singh son of Sucha Singh residents of village Veeram, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar made an application to the Tehsildar-cum-A.C.I. on 1.4.1986, for the separation of their shares from out of the joint-land measuring 15 Kanals held jointly with the respondents, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83, the land being situate at village Veeram, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. The notice of this application was given to the respondents, and some of them filed reply to this application vide their letter dated 6.4.1987, alleging that private partition had already been effected between the parties; the application had been made against some of the dead persons; and this application had been made for partial partition. The A.C.I., Patti, after considering the objections, decided to continue with the partition proceedings, as per his order dated 31.8.1987, and a direction was given to call for 'Naqsa A'. Against this order, Kartar Singh son of Jail Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Patti, which was rejected as per Collector's order dated 3.12.1987, with the observation,''the appellant has simply preferred the appeal to delay the proceedings and there is no reason to set aside the impugned order. However, the learned lower court will appoint the legal heirs of Smt. Jeo, Chanan Singh, Ishar Kaur and Sajjan Singh deceased, as it has been proved that they are dead. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The learned A.C. 1st Grade should proceed with the case after appointing the legal heirs of dead persons if any and decide the case after hearing both the parties.'' Against this order, Kartar Singh filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, as a result of which, the present case has been reported with the recommendation that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, I am of the view that the present revision petition has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected. I am afraid the recommendation made by the learned Commissioner in his reference dated 7.8.1989, is not in conformity with the provisions of law, and as such, this needs to be ignored and the order passed by the Collector as well as the A.C.I., Patti, being free from any infirmity, needs to be upheld. On the application for partition made by Kundan Singh, some of the co-sharers had raised certain objections and the A.C.I., Patti, finding no substance in these objections had decided to continue with the partition proceedings. The appeal filed against the order of the A.C.I. by Kartar Singh, was found without merit and was rejected. However, the order of A.C.I., Patti dated 31.8.1987, being an interlocutory order, only a revision petition could be filed against this and no appeal was competent. Anyway, the learned Commissioner has reported this case with his opinion that as the partition proceedings were instituted against some dead persons, legally such applications for partition should have not been entertained at all, and the appeal filed by the petitioner should have been accepted by the Collector. In the opinion of the learned Commissioner, the order dated 31.8.1987 passed by the A.C.I. and order dated 3.12.1987, passed by the Collector, Patti, being suffering from manifest illegality and impropriety, deserve to be quashed and the respondents are required to file fresh application, impleading only those persons who are alive. In the opinion of the learned Commissioner, the question of appointing legal heirs arises only if somebody dies during the pendency of the proceedings.