BABUR RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It arises out of these facts :-

(2.) In their return the contesting respondents 3 and 4 pleaded that a private partition took place between Raunaq Ram, Daulat Ram and Mansa Ram, sons of Gurditta Mal, on 12th Kartik, Sambat 1968 BK., which was recognised by the Civil Court, i.e. the Court of Subordinate Judge, Faridkot State, by its judgment, dated 10.2.1920, in a suit brought by Mansa Ram against his brothers. The finding of the Civil Court was -

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has candidly conceded that the objection raised by the respondent, Mulkh Raj, before the Consolidation Authorities did involve a question of title, but he contends that there is authority for the proposition that, by virtue of Section 16-A of the Act, the Consolidation Officer is required to partition a joint khata in accordance with the shares recorded in the Record of Rights as belonging to them. In support of this contention he has referred to Section 16-A of the Act and a Bench judgment of this Court in Pat Ram and others v. The Punjab State and others, Civil Writ No. 1641 of 1960, decided on 18.10.1963. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that Section 16-A of the Act does not exclude the application of Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 , and whenever a question of title is involved, the Consolidation Officer is not competent to decide it as such, and, in such a situation, he should refuse to partition the land leaving the aggrieved parties to get the matter decided by a Civil Court. In support of this contention he has cited Ram Gopal and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1965 67 PunLR 1102, and Beant Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others,1966 PunLR 221. It appears to me that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot prevail. The opening words of Section 16-A(1) of the Act read as follows :-