LAL CHAND Vs. BHOOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against orders of the Commissioner, Hisar Division dated 17.11.1994 in the partition case. When the case was heard by the Commissioner neither the revision petitioners nor their counsel appeared before the Court. The Commissioner however considered the matter on merits on his own and found the revision petition without any merit and the same was therefore dismissed.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the two parties. The counsel for the revision petitioner has mainly taken the point that while finalising the partition the possessions have been disturbed and some of the Khasra Nos. have not been provided with passage and water-course and thus the mode of partition have been violated. I have considered the points raised by the counsel for the revision petitioner and have also consulted the record. Some disturbance of old possessions is in-built and unavoidable in the partition process. Revenue Authorities at best can make an effort to maintain the old possessions but the same may not always be possible. It may also be added that the mode of partition as drawn up in the instant case only records that the existing possessions will be kept in view. Similar is the guideline recorded about passageway and water-course. While carving out the various Taks in the course of the partition proceedings it is neither nor possible to provide passage/water-course to each and every Khasra No. Some particular Khasra Nos. which have been mentioned in the revision petition in this context form part of some particular Tak and if the Tak as such is connected with passage/water-course, the same for the purposes of partition is enough. It is for the concerned share-holders to take the passage/water-course to the various Khasra Nos. in their Tak.