Hakam Singh and others vs The State of Punjab and others

K. Kannan, J.—The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner holding that a direction for review of the order by the Assistant Collector would be considered, taking note of the petitioners'' alleged application for warrant of possession said to have been filed on 01.05.1974. The proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and in terms of Section 122, the partitioned land was required to be incorporated in the revenue records within 3 years from the time when the partition proceedings were approved. In this case, the partition proceedings had been ordered on 30.07.1973 but it appears that the petitioners, who had filed such an application within 3 years did not pursue the same since their father had been murdered and they had to go away from village fearing for their own safety. When the application was said to be pursued before the Assistant Collector, the Assistant Collector had held that the remedy would be only to sue for partition, since the original order approving of partition had not been carried through in the manner known to law within a period of 3 years.

It is this order of the Assistant Collector which was modified by the Collector when he noticed that it was not as if the petitioners had not filed any application for warrant of delivery of possession within 3 years and he had, therefore, directed the matter to be reviewed and an appropriate decision taken. In a further revision to the Financial Commissioner, he held that the warrant of possession cannot be given effect till a decision was taken on the review application. He observed that the possession will also be not disturbed till the period of limitation. I cannot find any fault in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner for the question of issue of warrant of possession cannot arise till the review had been undertaken by the Assistant Collector. The disturbance of possession also did not arise for only when the partition proceedings which were approved in the year 1974 had been given effect in the manner known to law, the question of disturbance of possession of the defendant would ever arise. I do not find an error in the impugned order for subjecting the same for interference through a writ petition.

The impugned order is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed.