JEET KUMAR Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter arises from the recommendation made by the Commissioner, Kangra Division, in revision no. 130/ 99 decided on 29.1.2000.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the respondent before the Commissioner Sh. Sadhu Ram (deceased) had applied for partition of land measuring 1 -91 -35 hectares in mohal/mauja Badukhar, Tehsil Indora of Kangra district. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Tehsil Indora had sanctioned the mode of partition on 18.2.1997 while the partition was finally sanctioned on 4.11.1997. The appellants (before the Commissioner) had then preferred an appeal before the Collector, Nurpur sub division, who dismissed the same vide orders dated 3.3.1999. Thereupon on a revision petition filed by appellants, the Commissioner has recommended that the matter be remanded to the Collector to decide the appeal afresh. The Commissioner has made this recommendation as he found that the collector did not have an iota of knowledge as to how Court proceedings should be conducted and that there was incoherence in the interim orders. The Commissioner also felt that the orders of the Collector cannot be sustained as the same were non -speaking orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants further stated that the order of the Sub Divisional Collector is very strange and defective as pointed out the learned Commissioner. There is nothing in the case file to show that the parties were heard. Learned counsel cited the decision of one of my predecessors Sh. S.S. Sidhu in Dasaundhi Ram vs. Ramesh Singh and Others [1993 PLJ p. 107] to emphasise that land which abuts on roadside is valuable and should be partitioned as one block as per entitlement of the parties. He also cited the decision of Financial Commissioner, Punjab in case Gurmukh Singh and Others vs. Paramajit Singh and Others [2006 (1) PLJ. p. 288] on similar lines. Learned counsel prayed that the recommendation of the Commissioner be accepted.