HARBANS SINGH Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 15.1.2004, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide which he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Collector dated 9.4.2003.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent Charanjit Singh filed an application for partition of land in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahar regarding Khewat No. 20 Khatauni Nos. 34 and 35, Khewat No. 162, Khatauni No. 798, Khewat No. 485, Khatauni No. 477 and Khewat No. 648, Khatauni No. 983 and 984 situated in village Urrapar, Tehsil and District Nawanshahar as per Jamabandi for the year 1992-93. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nawanshahar proceeded ex parte against the present petitioner and the order of partition was passed on 17.12.1999. The petitioner filed application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 17.12.1999 before the Collector, Nawanshahar. The Collector, Nawanshahar dismissed the same on 1.1.2001. The respondent filed revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar challenging the order of the Collector, Nawanshahar dated 10.1.2001. The learned Commission (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the Collector, Nawanshahar on 28.11.2002 and remanded the case back to the District Collector, Nawanshahar for a decision as to whether the sanction should be granted to review the order dated 17.12.1999 or not. The District Collector, Nawanshahar dismissed the review petition vide order dated 9.4.2003. The revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar challenging the order of the District Collector, Nawanshahar dated 9.4.2003. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dismissed the revision petition on 15.1.2004, necessitating the present revision petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the orders of the learned Commissioner and the lower revenue officers are legal and the same have been passed in accordance with law. He has further submitted that the petitioner was rightly proceeded ex parte and the final order of partition has been passed after considering all the relevant facts. The learned counsel has pleaded for the dismissal of the revision petition.