SUBA SINGH Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present case has been reported by the Shri N.K. Arora, IAS, Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, under Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 11.12.1989 passed by the Collector, Patti in the case of partition of land, with his opinion, that the present revision be accepted and the order dated 6.4.1989, passed by A.C. Ist Grade, Patti and the order dated 11.12.1989, passed by the Collector, Patti be set aside, as these ''orders suffers from material irregularity'', and the case be remanded to A.C. Ist, Patti for fresh decision on the issue of private partition, as per his reference dated 29.10.1991.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of this case are that Gopal Singh Boor Singh sons of Bishan Singh, resident of village Valtoha, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar made an application to the Tehsildar cum ACI, Patti, for the separation of their shares from out of the land measuring 24 Kanals 9 Marlas, situate at village Valtoha, Tehsil Patti, as per Jamabandi for the year 1983-84. The ACI gave notice of this application and the parties appeared through their respective counsel before the ACI, who heard the case, and as per his order dated 6.4.1989, rejected the plea made by the respondents, regarding the previous private partition of the land, and decided to continue with the partition proceedings and called for naqsa Alaf. Against this order, Suba Singh son of Makhan Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Patti which was rejected as per Collector's order dated 11.12.1989. Still aggrieved by this order, Suba Singh filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar as a result of which, the present case has been reported, as per his reference dated 29.10.1991.

(3.) FURTHER , the order dated 6.4.1989 passed by the ACI, Patti, being an interim order, could be challenged by way of revision petition only and no appeal was competent against this order before the Collector, Patti. However, the Collector, Patti entertained and decided the appeal, as per his order dated 11.12.1989, which is incompetent, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The revision petition against the void order before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, is also void and untenable. On this score also, the present revision petition deserves rejection.