VINOD KUMAR Vs. ZILE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions filed under section 16 of the Punjab and Revenue Act, 1887 the order dated 05.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner Rohtak Division, dated 12.05.2003 passed by the Collector Sonepat, dated 04.10.2001 and 18.10.2001 passed by the AC 1st Grade Kharkhoda.

(2.) IN both the revision petitions common questions of law and facts are involved and these two revision petitions are decided with a single order.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners in his written arguments stated that the petitioner Vinod Kumar had been in possession of the entire Khasra No. 73/17/2 whereas in actual partition the petitioner has been given only 2 kanal 16 marlas and the rest of the land out of this Khasra number has been given to the other respondents thereby the possession of the petitioner has been disturbed. The respondent Nos. 13, 14 and 15 to whom the rest of land of this Khasra number has been given have submitted before the Collector in appeal that the petitioner is in possession of the 4 kanal of land of this khasra number and they have no objection if this khasra number is given to the petitioner. This shows that the possession of two petitioners is on the whole khasra number and the possession has been disturbed which is against the provisions of the mode of partition. The counsel for the petitioner relied on 1989 PLJ 180 titled as Phul Chand v. FC Haryana and others. The land of the petitioner has been carved out in such a manner that it will become difficult for the petitioner to cultivate the land as no passage/water course has been provided to the area of the petitioner. Under the law if there is a violation of mode of partition and even if the objections have not been filed even then the partition so carried out is null and void and is liable to be quashed. He cited 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 114 : 1996 PLJ 672 titled as Girwar v. FC Haryana and others to support is arguments. So far as the case of Raj Singh petitioner is concerned the possession of the petitioner has been disturbed. The possession of Khasra No. 73/17/1 was with the petitioner whereas now the petitioner has been given only 3 kanal land. Regarding Khasra No. 73/24/2 the possession of the petitioner was in the western side whereas now the petitioner has been shifted to eastern side.