HARNAM KAUR Vs. PREETO ALIAS PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 29th October, 1991, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, in a case of partition of joint-agricultural land.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, Preeto alias Pritam Kaur daughter of Harnam Kaur, had moved an application dated 16.5.1986, before the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, for the separation of her 2/5 share, out of joint-land measuring 80 Kanals 0 Marla, situate at village Gujjar, Tehsil and District Faridkot, as per the entry recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1980-81. It was stated in the application by Preeto alias Pritam Kaur, that, she had acquired this share in the joint-property through a Civil Court decree dated 6.10.1971, passed by the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Faridkot. In the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1980-81, which has been placed on the record, it is stated, that, mutation No. 1081, regarding the change of ownership in favour of Preeto stands sanctioned in accordance with the order dated 21.12.1979, passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, had initiated the necessary action, on the application for partition, and, the objection raised on behalf of the respondents in the application, alleging the involvement of question of title in the land to be partitioned, was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridkot, vide his order dated 3.5.1988. Against this order, Harnam Kaur had filed an appeal before the Collector Sub-Division, Faridkot, which was rejected as per Collector's order dated 30.11.1988. Still aggrieved by this order, Harnam Kaur, had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which was also rejected vide Commissioner's order dated 29.10.1991. The present second revision petition is directed against this order.

(3.) HOWEVER , I have a strong suspicion, that, on behalf of Smt. Harnam Kaur, someone has tried to play smart in this case, with a hoodwinking approach, just to keep this case alive and pending; and the Revision Petition was neither filed by Harnam Kaur herself nor with her authority or consent. The present revision petition is purported to have been filed by Harnam Kaur through her General Attorney-Gurmej Singh, but surprisingly, no Power-of- Attorney has been brought on the record. It is equally surprising, that, although the revision petition has been filed by Gurmej Singh as General Attorney, but the 'Wakalat Nama' placed on the record, which is undated, has been shown to have been thumb-marked by Harnam Kaur herself. This is quite intriguing; and to me it appears, that somebody interested in this case has filed this sham revision petition in the name of Harnam Kaur, by assuming a role, with the active support, if not connivance, of Shri S.M.L. Arora, Advocate. There is no Power-of-Attorney in favour of Gurmej Singh on the record, and the thumb-impression on the 'Wakalat Nama' filed by Sh. S.M.L. Arora, Advocate, purporting to be that of Harnam Kaur, appears to be bogus. Had the revision petition been filed by the General Attorney of Harnam Kaur, then, the 'Wakalat Nama' should have been signed or thumb-marked by the General Attorney, Gurmej Singh, and, there would have been no question of Harnam Kaur, signing or thumb-marking the 'Wakalat Nama'. The given circumstances are suggestive of the fact, that, there is something fishy.