JAGDEV SINGH Vs. DARBARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 15.11.1994 of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Arguments were heard in this case on 18.11.1997 and orders were reserved for to-day.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Darbara Singh and Bachan Kaur residents of village Nagari Gobindpura, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur filed an application before Assistant Collector Grade-I Mansa on 24.2.1982 for partition of and measuring 178K situated in the revenue estate of village Akalian, tehsil and District Mansa. In the partition application respondents Nos. 4 to 8 were Jagroop Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Baldev Singh, Karnail Singh and Jagdev Singh who are all brothers, and respondent No. 9 Hamir Singh is their father. In their application for partition Darbara Singh and Bachan Kaur specifically mentioned that the respondents were in occupation of land in excess of their entitlement and, therefore, the petitioners were interested in getting the land partitioned.

(3.) FURTHER proceedings were taken up by Assistant Collector Grade-I and he approved naqsha Bey on 24.4.1987. Naqsha 'Zeem' was also called for, and approved on 10.7.1987 and only the transfer of possession remained. On 24.8.1987 Jagdev Singh the youngest of the five brothers filed an appeal before Collector Sub Division, Mansa against the order dated 10.7.1987 vide which the instrument of partition was prepared. The main ground taken by Jagdev Singh was that he was a minor during the proceedings before Assistant Collector Grade-I and his interests has not been properly watched at that level. Now that he had attained majority he was filing an appeal himself. The Collector accepted the appeal and remanded the case to Assistant Collector Grade-I on 28.10.1987 with the directions that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file objections against naqsha Bey. Against this order of the Collector two appeals were filed before the Commissioner, one by Darbara Singh and Bachan Kaur, and the other by Jagroop Singh elder brother of Jagdev Singh. Darbara Singh and Bachan Kaur challenged the remand ordered by the Collector while Jagroop Singh took the plea that in view of findings given by the Collector the entire proceedings stood vitiated, the case should not have been simply remanded, the partition application should have been rejected in toto, or the partition proceedings should have been stayed de novo. In his order dated 15.11.1994, the Commissioner observed that Jagroop Singh had been actively pursuing the common interest of all the five brothers, therefore, it was difficult to believe that Jagdev Singh's interests had not been adequately watched in the partition proceedings. The five brothers had a common interest in the partition proceedings; they were in possession of excess land to the extent of 48K 2M which they stood to lose on the completion of the partition proceedings. The Commissioner further observed that the Collector had treated the appeal of Jagdev Singh as an appeal against naqsha 'Bey'. However, naqsha Bey in this case had been approved on 24.4.1987 against which no appeal was filed. The appeal of Jagdev Singh was filed against the order dated 10.7.1987 vide which naqsha 'Zeem' was approved, and no appeal lies against orders sanctioning naqsha 'Zeem', and preparing the instrument of partition on the basis of naqsha Bey already approved. The appeal of Jagdev Singh before the Collector was, thus not maintainable. He also observed that Jagroop Singh had no locus standi to file an appeal before him; if Jagdev Singh was aggrieved by the order of the Collector then he should have filed an appeal himself. The Commissioner accepted the appeal of Darbara Singh and Bachan Kaur and set aside the order of the Collector dated 28.10.1987 and restored the order of Assistant Collector-I dated 10.7.1987. Aggrieved by this order Jagdev Singh has come in revision before this Court.