HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') for partition of the land measuring 455 kanals 10 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Jiwan Nangal, Hadbast No. 138 in the court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Nakodar on 06.11.2001. The proposed mode of partition was prepared on 08.07.2003, which included the following Clause 2 :- "The partition will be effected keeping in view the possession intact as far as the same is possible. But the land falling on Nakodar- Jalandhar road will be partitioned proportionately between all the co sharers." The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nakodar, approved the aforesaid mode of partition vide order dated 28.07.2003. Thereafter, on an appeal filed before the Collector by respondents No. 5 and 6, the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nakodar. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, once again, approved the mode of partition after visiting the spot and hearing the parties vide order dated 09.03.2005 (Annexure P-6). The revision preferred by the petitioners against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide order dated 04.05.2006 (Annexure P-8). The Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab also dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioners, in limine.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has mainly pleaded that the Assistant Grade Ist Grade, Nakodar, has amended the clause 2 of the previous mode of partition to the extent that the partition will be effected after keeping the possession intact, and the remaining part of the Clause 2, i.e. "this land is most valuable and should be partitioned according to the shares of the parties" was deleted and out of the total land, 7 1/2 acres of land falls on the main metallic road, is most valuable land. Secondly, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade as also of the Appellate Authority that there was a family partition between the parties, is totally against the law and record of the case. The family partition so arrived at between the parties, becomes valid only if the same is brought to the notice of the revenue authorities and sanction is obtained in terms of Section 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents No. 5 and 6 has disputed the same and denied that the land in question is in joint possession between the parties, rather each of the shareholders is in possession of the respective shares, as demarcated and settled by Gurbax Singh, original owner, way back in the year 1985 between each of his sons. This partition has been accepted and given effect to. This contention of the learned counsel for respondents No. 5 and 6 finds support from the rapt No. 581 dated 16.10.1985 (Annexure R-5/1). Vide rapat No. 232 dated 17.03.1993, petitioner-Harbhajan Singh gave statement to the effect that earlier khasra girdawari in respect of killa No. 7/21, be got recorded in favour of Kulwinder Pal Singh son of Surjit Singh, who is on the spot cultivating this khasra number. This statement was made before Jaspal Singh, Numberdar of Village Nangal Jiwan and Surinderpal Singh, Chowkidar. The aforesaid statement of Harbhajan Singh is annexed as Annexure R-5/2. Other petitioner, Paramjit Singh, moved an application dated 02.12.1993 (Annexure R 5/3) before the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Nakodar, praying for change of electric motor connection bearing No. SD-124 in favour of Harbhajan Singh son of Gurbax Singh. Paramjit Singh was given electric connection bearing No. SD1/124, whereas Harbhajan Singh was given electric connection bearing No. SD1/125, which were installed in No. 286 and 287 of their respective holdings. Thus, the petitioner cannot deny the family partition having been arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Section 123 of the Act reads as under :- "123. Affirmation of partition privately affected- (1) in any case in which a partition has been made without the intervention of a Revenue Officer, any part thereto may apply to a Revenue Officer for an order affirming the partition. (2) On receiving the application, the Revenue Officer shall inquire into the case, and if he finds that the partition has in fact been made, he may make an order affirming it and proceed under Sections 119, 120, 121 and 122, or any of those sections, as circumstances may require, in the same manner as if the partition had been made on an application to himself under this Chapter."