GURDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Gurdip Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the orders dated 05.03.2013 (Annexure P-5) and 13.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) rendered by respondents No.2-Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, Chandigarh and 3 - Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Tehsildar, respectively, vide which the application dated 04.01.2006 seeking partition of land measuring 342 kanals 3 marlas at the instance of respondents No.4 and 5 has been ordered to be maintainable by declining the plea of family partition.

(2.) Mr. J.S. Brar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondents No.4 and 5 moved an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "1887 Act") seeking partition of the land aforementioned and an objection qua maintainability of the petition was raised on the ground that family partition had already taken place and on the basis of that rapat no.223 dated 25.01.2006 had been entered into but the objections were dismissed. The order was assailed before the Collector by filing the appeal which was allowed and order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was set aside. However, the matter was taken by respondents No.4 and 5 to the Commissioner, who vide order dated 03.06.2009 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the appeal. Respondents No.4 and 5 preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, who vide order dated 05.03.2013 (Annexure P-5) accepted the same. The order is not assailable on the ground that the private partition, even if not affirmed by the revenue authorities, is binding and cannot be ignored by any of the parties, as per the provisions of Section 123 of 1887 Act. Non-affirmation of the partition by the revenue officer would not render the private partition redundant as such affirmation will only determine the rights of the owners in respect of their obligation to pay land revenue.

(3.) In support of his contention, relied upon the ratio decided culled out by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. Dharam Singh 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 541 to contend that failure to seek affirmation of private partition, if otherwise proved on record, cannot be negated on account of non-affirmation from revenue authorities and thus, urges this Court for setting aside the impugned orders.