MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. TEHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present case has been reported by the Commissioner, Ferozepur, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 5.4.1995, passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Muktsar, in a case of partition of agriculture land, with his recommendation, that, the present revision petition be accepted and the order dated 5.4.1995, passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Muktsar, as well as, the order dated 2.1.1995, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade-cum- Tehsildar, Muktsar be quashed, as per his reference dated 8.1.1997.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of this case are, that Tehal Singh etc. had applied to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Muktsar, on 7.6.1994, for the separation of their shares from out of the joint-land, measuring 311 Kanals 4 Marlas, situate at Village Landa Roda, as per the Jamabandi, for the year 1992-93. On this application, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondents, that as the applicants had applied for partition of the said land earlier also, which was later on withdrawn, the second application for partition of the land was not maintainable, as Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, does not permit this. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Muktsar, as per his order dated 2.1.1995 had rejected and over-ruled this objection and had ordered to continue with the partition application. Against this order, Mukhtiar Singh, one of the co-sharers, had filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Muktsar, which was rejected, as per Collector's order dated 5.4.1995. Still aggrieved by this order, Mukhtiar Singh had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, as a result of which, the present case has been reported.

(3.) AS reported by the learned Commissioner, in his reference, it is true, that, according to Section 88 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, "the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the Revenue Courts until separate rules are made, but, this is not relevant to the present case, because the partition of the agricultural land is done in accordance with the provisions under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Chapter IX) by the Revenue Officers, and not as Revenue Courts. So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and quoted by the learned Commissioner in his reference, has no relevance to the present case. The procedure prescribed under Chapter IX of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, is self-contained; and, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable.