LAWS(P&H)-1997-9-148

MANJIT SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

Decided On September 10, 1997
MANJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
GURDEV SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has been reported by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 9-12-1993, passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, in a case of partition of agricultural land, with his recommendation that the order passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, as well as, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amloh, be set aside, as per his reference dated 6-9-1994.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that Gurdev Singh had made an application to the A.C.Ist Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Amloh, on 29-9-1992, for separation of his share from out of the joint land, measuring 31 Kanals 0 Marlas comprised in (Matter in Punjabi language omitted) situate at village Bharpoorgarh, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88. On this application, the respondents Manjit Singh etc. had raised objections, that, in the partition-application, the correct position had not been reflected; as some Khasra Nos., which stood mortgaged without possession with the Punjab Land Mortgage Bank, had not been indicated; and some Khasra Nos. from out of the joint-land, stood exchanged with some other Khasra Nos. and the same were also not indicated in the application. The A.C. Ist Grade, Amloh, vide his order dated 7-4-1993, had rejected these objections; and had decided to call for 'Naksa Alaf'. Against this order, Manjit Singh had filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amloh, which was rejected, as per Collector's orders, dated 9-12- 1993. Still aggrieved by this order, Manjit Singh had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as a result of which, the present case has been reported.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, the present revision petition has a merit and the same deserves to be accepted, and the orders impugned in this case, need to be set aside.