SURINDER SINGH Vs. SHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the orders dated 14.6.05, 26.4.01 and 30.1.01 of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, SDM-cum-Collector Baba Bakala and Tehsildar-cum-ACI Baba Bakala respectively.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Surinder Singh and others filed an application dated 5.6.97 in the court of Tehsildar-cum-A.C.I Baba Bakala under section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for the partition of land situated in village Jharu Nangal Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar. The A.C.I sanctioned the partition on 4.6.99. However, Surinder Singh filed an appeal before the SDM-cum-Collector Baba Bakala who vide his order dated 24.12.99 observed that khasra No. 38//4/2(4-18) has been shown twice in Naksha 'Irri' is patently wrong. The Collector, therefore, accepted the appeal and remanded the case to A.C.I Baba Bakala On remand the A.C.I Baba Bakala approved the Naksha 'Irri' and sanctioned partition vide his order dated 30.8.2000. Now Sham Singh and others filed appeal before the Collector Baba Bakala, who accepted the same vide his order dated 25.10.2000 and remanded the case to A.C.I to sanction the partition in view of the Naksha 'Irri' prepared by the field staff on 8.5.2000 bearing the signatures of Pritam Singh Patwari and also of Halqa Kanungo. Accordingly the A.C.I sanctioned the partition, vide his order dated 30.1.2001. Aggrieved the petitioners filed appeal before Collector Baba Bakala who vide his order dated 26.4.01 dismissed the same. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was also dismissed on 14.6.05 Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand the counsel for the respondents No. 1-5 and respondent No. 6 argued that all the courts below have given concurrent findings and impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They contended that the Dakhal as per the partition order has already been taken and considerations for the standing crops have been given and, as such the final partition has been implemented. The counsel contended that no appeal or revision lies at this stage. The reliance has been placed upon 1997(2) PLJ page 67. The counsel also filed a copy of order dated 25.10.2000 of Collector Baba Bakala. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 argued that once all the necessary steps in effecting partition have been taken then a party to proceedings cannot raise objections in drawing the instrument of partition. The counsel placed reliance upon Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lala Ram v. F.C. Haryana and others, 1992(1) R.R.R. 231 : AIR 1992 Page 62.