AJAIB SINGH Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 28.7.1997, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala in a case of partition of agricultural land.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, Inder Singh etc., had applied to the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Sunam, for the separation of their shares, from out of the joint-land, measuring 331 kanals 1 marla, situate at village Changliwala alias Kartarpura, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83. On this application, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondents, that, the said land already stood partitioned privately; so, this land could not be partitioned again, afresh. In support of their contention, they had reportedly produced documents which were exhibited Al to A6. However, the A.C. Ist Grade, Sunam, had rejected this objection, on the ground, that the previous private partition of the disputed land, had not been established from the documents produced; because, the same had not been incorporated in the revenue record, and the said land was still joint, vide his order dated 13.7.1988. Against this order, Ajaib Singh etc., had filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Sunam, which was rejected vide Collector's order dated 27.3.1989, as per which, it was observed, that, the previous private partition of the land, had not been proved and the documents referred to by the appellants related to some other land; and the disputed land was still joint. The ld. Collector had also observed, that, as the appellants were in occupation of more land, than their due share in the joint-land, so, they were opposing the partition of land, with the intention to prolong the partition proceedings, and, to delay its finalisation. Aggrieved by the Collector's order, Ajaib Singh etc., had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, in which, a plea was taken, that, the said land was partitioned through the Revenue Officer, which was decided on 2.4.1951, and since then, the parties had been in possession of their shares in the disputed land. However, the ld. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, had rejected the revision petition vide his order dated 28.7.1997. The present revision petition is directed against this order. The ld. counsel for the petitioners has been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and, after perusal of the papers brought on the record, I am of the view, that the present revision petition has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected.

(3.) MOREOVER , as per the requirement of law, the partition of the shares is required to be done as per the latest entries in the updated record of rights; and, the so-called partition done in the year 1951, will be totally irrelevant and insignificant, as much water has flowed under the bridges since 1951; and, the record of rights have witnessed drastic changes.