RAGHBIR Vs. HARPHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three revision petitions under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against order dated 7.2.1997 passed by Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, order dated 5.2.1996 of Collector, Bhiwani and order dated 23.5.1995 of Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Tosham approving Naksha 'Khe' and ordering for the preparation of Naksha 'Ge' for partition of three Khewats of land in dispute. Since the facts of all these three cases are similar and the co-sharers in three Khewats are the same, these cases are being disposed of by a single order with the consent of the parties.

(2.) FACTS in brief of this case are that respondents No. 1 to 3 moved an application for partition of land before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade who vide his order dated 23.5.1995 sanctioned Naksha 'Khe'. It was contended before the Assistant Collector that while preparing Naksha 'Khe' objections raised were not kept in view. Similarly objections raised before the Collector were also not paid heed to and the learned Commissioner also dismissed the appeal holding therein that Assistant Collector had carefully examined all the factors. The main contention of counsel for the petitioners in that Naksha 'Khe' was not prepared according to mode of partition. Petitioners have not been given the 'tal' land and only given 'tibba' land which is inferior quality of land has been given to them. Land should have been partitioned according to type and value. Apart from this old possession had also to be taken into consideration. It was further contended on behalf of petitioners that land of parties comprised in seven Khewats whereas the respondents moved application for partition of only three Khewats. As per law no partial partition is permissible, partition should be for all the joint Khewats. Moreover, Smt. Sajna Devi was not impleaded as party nor her legal representative was impleaded. Learned Commissioner in his order dated 7.2.1997 held that counsel for the petitioners could not explain what objections he had regarding the mode of partition or the Naksha 'Khe' prepared by the AC 2nd Grade. Learned Commissioner has further held that he himself examined the Naksha 'Khe' and found that the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade and his staff devoted considerable time and attention to the preparation of Naksha 'Khe' which must have been very difficult exercise as consolidation of holdings had not taken place in this village and revenue record is also not upto date. Onus to prove that Naksha 'Khe' was not according to the mode of partition was on the petitioners who have not fulfilled this obligation either in the lower Court or before him. Learned Commissioner dismissed the revision petition and also directed the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade to consider any genuine objection and try to draw up the instrument of partition in the best manner acceptable to all the parties.