SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a revision petition, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 17.9.1992, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala and Ferozepur Divisions, Camp at Patiala, in a case of partition of agricultural land.

(2.) THE relevant facts of this case are, that, Rajinder Singh son of Bagga Singh, had made an application on 23.12.1982, to the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sunam, for the separation of his 1/2 share, from out of the joint land measuring 179 Kanals 19 Marlas, situate at village Janal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, as per the jamabandi, for the year 1977-78, by explaining, that, the original co-sharer Devinder Singh, had sold the entire land falling to his share, so, the vendees, as recorded in the remarks column of the jamabandi, have been impleaded as parties in this case. The petitioner Sukhdev Singh, son of Kartar Singh and Gurdev Kaur wife of Inder Singh, were also the vendees. After initiating the necessary action, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, had approved the 'Mode of Partition', vide his order dated 20.9.1984. Thereafter, 'Naqsa Bay' was proposed, on the basis of the approved 'Mode of Partition'; and, objections were invited from the parties. The petitioner-Sukhdev Singh, had raised certain objections on this 'Naqsa Bay', inter alia, by stating, that, he had purchased 49 Kanals and one Marla, as per the Registered Sale Deed, dated 23.6.1981, but, he had been allotted only 34 Kanals and 6 Marlas, which was deficit by 14 Kanals and 15 Marlas, for which he should be compensated, by allotting an additional area measuring 14 Kanals and 15 Marlas. The objections raised by Sukhdev Singh were rejected; and, 'Naqsa Bay', was approved by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, on 25.7.1986. Against this order, Sukhdev Singh had filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Sunam, which was rejected, vide Collector's order, dated 15.12.1986. The revision petition filed by Sukhdev Singh, against the Collector's order, was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala, vide his order dated 17.9.1992. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.9.1992.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case; and, after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that, the present revision petition has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected.