JASKARANJIT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUMPURAN Singh and others filed an application in March 1986 against Shangara Singh and others, Under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 for partition of land measuring 1158 Kanals situated in village Nizampura, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar as per Jamabandi for the year 1979-80. Petitioner, his father Piara Singh and few others were proceeded against ex parte. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Amritsar on a consideration of the matter, sanctioned partition by his order dated 31. 12. 1986, Annexure PI. Appeal at the instance of the petitioner, his father Piara Singh and few others was dismissed as barred by time by the Collector, Amritsar by order dated 31. 10. 1988. The petitioner, his father Piara Singh and others still filed a revision against the order of the Collector. The Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar" Division, Jalandhar by order dated 27. 2. 1991 recommended to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Chandigarh for remanding the case to the Assistant Collector for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners therein and others. The Financial Commissioner on receipt of the reference heard the parties and by order dated 29. 8. 1996, Annexure P4 disagreed with the recommendations of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the revision petition after coming to the conclusion that the instrument of partition as required Under Section 121 of the Act had been prepared and sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 31. 7. 1987 and that no appeal or revision was competent against it. It is this order of learned Financial Commissioner which is under challenge at the instance of Jaskaranjit Singh only.

(2.) IN response to notice of motion, reply has been filed by respondents 2 to 7 only.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is true that the petitioner was minor on the date when he was proceed against ex parte. But this will not make any difference in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Father of the petitioner was also a party to the partition proceedings and he was also proceeded against ex parte. The order of partition has attained finality against all the co-sharers including the father of the petitioner as none of the co-sharers has chosen to impugn the instrument of partition or the order of partition except the petitioner. The interest of the petitioner was sufficiently safeguarded by his father who was also a party to the partition proceedings. Moreover, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out even a single fact which may show that some prejudice was caused to the petitioner during partition proceedings. Once the petitioner has failed to show any prejudice having been caused to him during partition proceedings, we see no ground to interfere with the order of partition which became final way-back in the year 1987. Even the father of the petitioner, as noticed above, has accepted the order of partition and has not challenged it by filing writ petition. This petition is consequently dismissed being without any merit.