KASHMIR SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has been reported by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 30.3.1993, passed by the S.D.O.-(C)-cum-Collector, Batala in a case of partition of land, with his opinion that the present revision petition be accepted, the impugned orders be set aside and the case be remanded to be A.C. Ist Grade, Batala for initiating the partition proceedings ab initio after giving due opportunity to the petitioners, as per his reference dated 28.4.1995.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Amar Singh son of Chuhar Singh resident of village Shakar, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur had applied to the Tehsildar-cum-AC Ist, Batala for the separation of his 3/25 share from out of the joint-land measuring 41K-12M, situate at village Shakar, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88. The A.C.I gave notice of this application to the respondents, but none of them came present before him. Thereafter, Mushtri Munadi was done in the village, and to this also, none of the respondents responded and appeared before the ACI, and therefore, the respondents were proceeded against ex parte on 18.2.1991. Mode of partition was approved in this case on 29.5.1991 and the final partition was ordered by the ACI on 17.9.1991. Against this order, the appeal filed by Shri Kashmir Singh and Pritam Singh was rejected by the Collector, Batala, as per his order dated 30.3.1993. Thereafter, against the Collector's order, as many as eleven share-holders viz. Kashmir Singh etc. filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, as a result of which, the present case has been reported recommending the acceptance of the revision petition on the grounds stated in the reference dated 28.4.1995.

(3.) IN this case, there are about 15 persons interested in this petition, but only two co-sharers had challenged the order of the ACI, before the Collector, Batala, on the very generalised grounds, without raising any specific issue pinpointing the illegality of irregularity, if any. The Collector had rightly rejected the appeal, as per his order dated 30.3.1993, which is quite categocial and speaking one. As the appeal was filed by only two co-sharers, this implies, that, the remaining co-sharers were satisfied with the partition order passed by the ACI. The appellants had not applied for getting the ex-parte order set aside, and they had also not challenged the mode of partition, under Section 118(2) of the Act ibid. The partition ordered by the ACI could be challenged only on the grounds, that, this was not done in accordance with the approved mode of partition, but in the appeal no specific violation of the mode of partition, in ordering the partition had been pointed out. Thus, the appeal filed by the petitioners was sans merit. Although, against the partition order, only two persons had preferred an appeal before the Collector, but the revision petition before the Commissioner has been preferred by as many as 11 persons, and the grounds advanced are very generalised ones, and no specific ground has been emphasised. The learned Commissioner has recommended the acceptance of the present revision petition, without any solid ground. In my considered view, the reference is totally uncalled for, as there has been no miscarriage of justice, and the partition has been done, in a very fair and equitable manner. The petitioners were given due opportunity, as required under the law, to be present and to defind their right, by the ACI, but the petitioners seem to have opted otherwise. In the partition cases, the applicant-share-holder in a joint khata, who seeks to get separation of his share from out of the joint land, does not claim any relief qua the other co-sharers-respondents, he only wants the separation of his own share in the land. The other co-sharers or the interested persons, are expected to be vigilant and cautious enough to see, that, their right is not impinged or trampled upon, and there is no mis- carriage of justice in the process of partition. All the co-sharers stand on equal footing and the Respondents-shareholders, are so, only technically. As regards the observations made by the learned Commissioner regarding the tampering and the interpolation in the interim order dated 29.1.1991, after careful perusal of the record, I am of the view, that this is not as serious, as this has been made out to be, and in my considered opinion, this is quite innocuous and inconsequential, and does not smack of any mala fide intention or motive. It is a trifle; and does not merit to be taken note of.