Jagit Singh vs Gurbax Singh

Shyama Mann, FC.

This is a reference from the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot dated 4.2.1997 vide which he has recommended that the orders of Collector, Sub Division, Rampura Phool dated 19.12.1994 and the Assistant Collector GradeI, Rampura Phool, dated 10.11.1993 be set aside. Vide order dated 10.11.1993 Assistant Collector GradeI had finalised naqsha Bey in partition proceedings.

The land in dispute measures 228 Kanals 8 Marlas and is situated in village Mehraj, Patti Kalan, Tehsil Rampura Phool, District Bathinda. In this case the mode of partition was sanctioned on 7.1.1993 and naqsha Bey was received on 2.3.1993. In the proposed nakshq Bey a passage leading to the land of the petitioner was provided through ''tak'' khasra No. 97//24/2, 130//42/17/2 on the eastern side. On objections by the respondents, the passage was deleted by Assistant Collector GradeI on 20.4.1993 and naqsha Bey was finalised.

Jagjit Singh raised two objections before the Collector in appeal against this order : (i) that the path was necessary for giving him proper access to his residence in the village, and (ii) he should be provided 3 Kanals 10 Marlas of land to compensate for sale of 1 Killa to a third party by Sham Singh, father of the respondents. There were objections from Balwant Singh also, regarding nonprovision of an agreed access to him. The Collector remanded the case to Assistant Collector GradeI on 13.10.1993 for passing a detailed and speaking order. Parties were directed to appear before Assistant Collector GradeI on 4.11.1993.

On 4.11.1993 Assistant Collector GradeI listed the case for arguments for 10.11.1993 and decided it the same day. In his order he accepted the plea of Balwant Singh respondent that the 2 karam path which had been agreed to be provided to him on the West of Khasra No. 130//12/21, and 19/2 should be duly reflected as this had been overlooked in his order dated 20.4.1993. He, however, rejected the plea of the present petitioner for provision of more direct access to his residence, observing that a path had already been provided through Khasra No. 130//19. There were no findings regarding the request of the petitioner for allocation of extra area of 3 Kanals 10 Marlas. The order of Assistant Collector GradeI was subsequently endorsed by the Collector on 13.10.1993; hence the revision petition and the present reference.

In arguments before me the counsel for the petitioner has merely agitated for provision of a direct access as per his earlier request and the plea for allocation of extra land has not been pressed at all. Explaining the layout of the disputed land the counsel for the petitioner has clarified that the khewats which are the subject matter of partition are contiguous. There is no dispute regarding allocation of the ''Taks''. The only grouse of the petitioner is that vide serial No. 3 of the mode of partition dated 7.1.1993 passages are to be provided as per requirement; and the requirement of the petitioner has been overlooked. It has been explained by him that a metalled road encircles the entire area under partition on the western and northern side. The ''Taks'' of the remaining three cosharers are connected to the abadi by the shortest possible route. On the other hand the Tak of Jagjit Singh, as per the present naqsha Bey, is not connected to the abadi directly. He has to first approach the metalled road on the west through khasra Nos. 2130//18 and 19 in the south, and thereafter traverse a long and circuitous route along this road before reaching his residence. The shorter path as suggested through Khasra No. 97//24/2, 130//4/2, 17/2 is very much necessary in the interest of saving time and labour and expenses.

On behalf of the respondents it has been agitated that Jagjit Singh has already been provided an access from the west side. However, no valid reasons have been adduced why he should not have more direct access like other co sharers.

Normally a person seeks termination of his joint status when he feels disadvantaged. In this case there are no ulterior motives evident for seeking partition, and therefore, it is against the principles of natural justice that the petitioner should have been placed in a position of obvious disadvantage visavis other cosharers. Provision of proper passages to various parties in partition proceedings is a very important function of revenue officers and in view of the position explained above it is evident that the partition has resulted in hardship to the petitioner and the very purpose of partition has been defeated. The lower revenue officers have failed to appreciate the problem of the petitioner. This reference is therefore accepted to the extent that a direct access shall be carved out through khasra No. 97//24.2, 130//4/2 etc. as originally proposed in naqsha Bey upto the fields of Jagjit Singh. To that extent necessary amendments shall be carried out in the khataunis and Sanad Taqseem. The order of Assistant Collector GradeI dated 10.11.1993 and Collector dated 19.12.1994 are set aside accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before Assistant Collector GradeI, Rampura Phool on 24.4.1998.