Sukhdev Singh vs Rajinder Singh

S. R. Bunger, F.C..

The present is a revision petition, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 17.9.1992, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala and Ferozepur Divisions, Camp at Patiala, in a case of partition of agricultural land.

The relevant facts of this case are, that, Rajinder Singh son of Bagga Singh, had made an application on 23.12.1982, to the TehsildarcumAssistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sunam, for the separation of his 1/2 share, from out of the joint land measuring 179 Kanals 19 Marlas, situate at village Janal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, as per the jamabandi, for the year 197778, by explaining, that, the original cosharer Devinder Singh, had sold the entire land falling to his share, so, the vendees, as recorded in the remarks column of the jamabandi, have been impleaded as parties in this case. The petitioner Sukhdev Singh, son of Kartar Singh and Gurdev Kaur wife of Inder Singh, were also the vendees.

After initiating the necessary action, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, had approved the `Mode of Partition'', vide his order dated 20.9.1984.

Thereafter, `Naqsa Bay'' was proposed, on the basis of the approved `Mode of Partition''; and, objections were invited from the parties. The petitionerSukhdev Singh, had raised certain objections on this `Naqsa Bay'', inter alia, by stating, that, he had purchased 49 Kanals and one Marla, as per the Registered Sale Deed, dated 23.6.1981, but, he had been allotted only 34 Kanals and 6 Marlas, which was deficit by 14 Kanals and 15 Marlas, for which he should be compensated, by allotting an additional area measuring 14 Kanals and 15 Marlas. The objections raised by Sukhdev Singh were rejected; and, `Naqsa Bay'', was approved by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, on 25.7.1986. Against this order, Sukhdev Singh had filed an appeal before the SubDivisional Collector, Sunam, which was rejected, vide Collector's order, dated 15.12.1986.

The revision petition filed by Sukhdev Singh, against the Collector's order, was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala, vide his order dated 17.9.1992. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.9.1992.

The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case; and, after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that, the present revision petition has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected.

In this case, all the three Revenue Officers below, in their concurrent and unanimous findings, had come to a very categorical conclusion, that, the petitionerSukhdev Singh, was the last vendee, who, had purchased the land measuring 49 Kanals and 1 Marla, as per the registered sale deed, dated 23.6.1981, from the vendorDevinder Singh, who had sold an excess land, than his own share in the jointland; and, in terms of the approved `Mode of Partition'', the last vendee was to suffer. As such, the orders passed by all the three Revenue Officers below, do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which may call for interference.

However, in the present petition, the petitioner has taken the plea, that, it was Gurdev Kaur wife of Inder Singh, who was the last vendee; and, as such, she should suffer the deficiency, and not the petitionerSukhdev Singh. In support of his contention, it has been pleaded, that, both Sukhdev Singh and Gurdev Kaur had purchased the land from the PowerofAttorney of Devinder Singh, on 11.6.1981; and, the sale deed executed in favour of Sukhdev Singh, was prior in time, to the sale deed executed in favour of Gurdev Kaur, because the sale deed in favour of Sukhdev Singh was entered at Sr. No. 1270, and, the sale deed in favour of Gurdev Kaur, was entered at Sr. No. 1272, of the Document Writer's Register, which is indicative of the fact, that, Gurdev Kaur is the last vendee in this case, and not the petitionerSukhdev Singh.

The sale deed in favour of Sukhdev Singh, was got registered with the SubRegister concerned on 23.6.1981; and, in favour of Gurdev Kaur on 11.6.1981 itself; and, I am afraid, the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable, because, the mere entries in the Document Writer's Register, are not conclusive proof of anything, much less, about the date and time of execution of the deeds, except, that, these entries may have some corroborative evidential value, under the Indian Evidence Act, because, such Registers are maintained in the ordinary pursuit of their business, by the Document Writers. It is a matter of common knowledge, that, generally, the deeds are executed at the time of registration only; and, going by that, the plea advanced on behalf of the petitionerSukhdev Singh, does not carry any weight, and deserves to be ignored. As the sale deed in favour of Gurdev Kaur, was registered on 11.6.1981, and, the sale deed in favour of Sukhdev Singh was registered on 23.6.1981. So, apparently, Sukhdev Singh was the last vendee, and, he had rightly been made to suffer.

In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.

Announced.