Rur Singh vs Malkiat Singh

Shyama Mann (Mrs.), FC

This revision petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, dated 22.5.1992 vide which he endorsed the order of Collector, Samrala dated 30.9.1987 and order of A.C.I dated 13.7.1987 in partition proceedings relating to land measuring 86K 17M situated in village Gharkhana, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.

Malkiat Singh son of Hazara Singh had filed an application for partition of the said land on 23.6.1981 before A.C.I, Samrala. Rur Singh, the present petitioner had objected to the lengthy passage being provided to his land as per original naqsha ''Bey'', and has submitted that he should be given a passage along the ''rajbaha'' bordering Khasra Nos. 15 and 16 of Rectangle 41. In revision the Finance Commissioner had set aside all orders of the subordinate courts regarding naqsha ''Bey'' on 4.8.1987 and remanded the case to A.C.I with the direction that the objections and proposal of the petitioner in relation to the passage should be considered and decided.

On 13.8.1987 Assistant Collector GradeI maintained his previous order and observed that the lowlying portion of the passage could be filled up. Aggrieved against this order Rur Singh, Tota Singh etc. filed an appeal before the Collector. After visiting the spot the Collector observed that Malkiat Singh who had been allotted Khasra No. 41//15 had entered into an oral exchange with a third person Swaran Singh, so that he was presently also in possession of land to the immediate west of 41//15. He observed that if the request for providing the proposed passage was acceded to it would dismember the ''Tak'' of the respondentMalkiat Singh effectively into two. He, therefore, rejected the proposal. While doing so he conceded that a part of the path provided had one karam width overlapping a lowlying pit which would impede easy access. He, therefore, increased the width of the entire path along the Eastwest stretch by another karam.

Not satisfied with this order, the petitioners have come in for revision. The grounds of revision are that the Assistant Collector has passed a non speaking order in utter disregard of the directions of Financial Commissioner dated 4.8.1987. The path is not only zigzag but is also through a deep pit and is not usable. Since the petitioners have already been provided a ''Khal'' on West side of 41//15 and 16 the ideal location of the path would be along this ''Khal''. The petitioners even offered to compensate Surjit Singh for the same.

I have heard the arguments in this case and have also gone through the record. It is noticed from the order of the Assistant Collector GradeI dated 13.8.1987 that he has not given any reason why he has rejected the proposal of Rur Singh, Tota Singh etc. for providing a passage along Khasra Nos. 41//15 16. A look at naqsha ''Bey'' shows that the path which has been provided is clearly more circuitous and longer. In addition a part of it passes through a deep pit. In appeal the Collector has not only widened a portion of the passage by another ''karam'' but has also left things in the hands of the parties who are already at loggerheads by saying that the pit will be filled up by Malkiat Singh etc. He has also found a new excuse to defy the orders of Financial Commissioner dated 4.2.1987 by observing that some land has been orally exchanged by Malkiat Singh with Swaran Singh though there was no previous objection on this subject. He has further observed that if a path is provided along Khasra No. 41//15 and 16 it will dismember the fields of Malkiat Singh. He has failed to notice that a ''Khal'' has already been provided in this direction, and that the only suggestion is that the passage should also be provided along this ''khal''.

Provision of proper passages to various shareholders is a very important duty enjoined upon the revenue officers. While doing so they are expected to ensure that these occupy the minimum possible area, avoid unnecessary bends and curves and traverse through level land which is not lowlying. In this case these ingredients have been violated by the revenue authorities without cogent reasons. Even the Commissioner as a revisional authority has passed an order which shows nonapplication of mind. The proposal of the petitioners has not been examined by the lower revenue officers as per the clear directives of my predecessor and rejected the same summarily. Therefore, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders passed by the lower revenue courts are set aside and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector GradeI, Samrala, for fresh decision in the presence of the interested parties. Parties are directed to appear before him on 6.1.1998.