CHETAN KAUR Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The present case has been reported by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 9.2.1994, passed by the Collector, Sub-Division, Barnala, District Sangrur, in a case of partition of joint agricultural land, with his recommendation, that, the order dated 24.3.1993, passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, as well as the order dated 9.2.1994, passed by the Collector, Sub-Division, Barnala, be set aside, and the case be remanded to the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, for deciding the whole issue afresh, after allowing opportunity to the parties for bringing their evidence and documents on record, as per his reference dated 21.4.1997.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that Dalip Singh son of Nahar Singh resident of village Dhanoula Kalan, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur, had made an application dated 30.7.1991, to the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, for the separation of his share with the respondents from out of the joint- land, comprised in Khewat No. 588 (199 kanals 3 marlas), Khewat No. 589 (34 kanals 0 marla) and Khewat No. 590 (3 kanals 6 marlas), situate at village Dhanoula Kalan, with the various vicissitudes in this case, the A.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, vide his order dated 24.3.1993, had approved 'Naksha Alaf'. Aggrieved by this order, the present petitioners Chetan Kaur etc. had filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Barnala, which was rejected vide Collector's order dated 9.2.1994. Against this order, Chetan Kaur etc. had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as a result of which, the present case has been reported vide reference dated 21.4.1997.

(3.) AFTER thorough perusal of the record, I find, that, in all the three Khewats, for which partition have been sought, vide partition application dated 30.7.1991, the applicant-Dalip Singh, no doubt, is a co-sharer, but in all the three Khewats, the other co-sharers are not common. As such, the application for the partition dated 30.7.1991, was not in order; and the same should have been rejected initially. The partition of joint-agricultural land, through the intervention of the Revenue-Officers, under Chapter IX of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, is basically done Khewat-wise; and for each Khewat, a separate application for partition is needed, under Section 111 of the Act ibid. However, in one application for partition, more than one Khewats can be clubbed, where the co-sharers in all such Khewats, irrespective of the quantum of shares are common, and not otherwise. This would mean, that, those Khewats, where co-sharers are not common, the partition of such Khewats cannot be done by clubbing them together in one application. In the instant case, the application for partition was made for partition of Khewats No. 588, 589 and 590; and in all these three Khewats, although Dalip Singh has a share, but, the other co-sharers are different. As such, all these three Khewats could not be combined for partition in one application; and the applicant was required to make a separate application for each Khewat, under Section 111 of the Act ibid. As the 'Naksha Alaf' prepared in the instant case, is violative of the above-mentioned axiom, so, the order passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, Barnala, as well as, by the Collector, Sub-Division, Barnala, is not in conformity with the provisions of law, and thus, are illegal and improper; which merit to be set aside.