ROMILA DUBEY,J - (1.)THIS revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 16.6.2005 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, order dated 1.8.2003 of S.D.M.-cum-Collector, Ajnala as well as order dated 21.1.2003 of Tehsildar-cum-A.C.I, Ajnala.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Sukhwinder Singh and Kuljinder Singh filed an application for the partition of land measuring 69 kanals and 11 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Jagdev Kalan, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. The petitioner Baldev Singh and others raised preliminary objection that question of title is involved in the land in dispute as there had been private partition between the parties. The A.C.-I rejected the objection raised by the present petitioner and called for Naksha 'Urra' from the field staff vide his order dated 21.1.2003. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed an appeal before the S.D.M.-cum-Collector, Ajnala which was dismissed on 1.8.2003. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 16.5.2005. Hence the present revision petition.
Both the counsel have filed written arguments in this case. It is averred by the counsel for the petitioners that the question of title is involved in this case and a civil suit is pending qua the land in dispute wherein the civil Court has already ordered status quo. Once the civil Court is seized of the matter, the only option available with the revenue authority was to keep the partition proceeding in abeyance in order to await the decision of the civil Court because the judgment of the civil Court is binding upon the revenue Court. The second contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that there had already been a family partition between the parties and the same has already been given effect to and the parties are in possession of specific Khasra Nos. and are cultivating the same as per the family partition and have installed there separate tubewells and they have also separate quarrahs. Further the respondent has sought partial partition because the land bearing Khasra Numbers 58//3/1(0-4), 58//3/2(0-4), 50//26(1-2) has not been included in the partition application.

(3.)ON the other hand it is averred in the written arguments filed by the counsel for the respondent Nos. 4-9 that there is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. It is averred that despite numerous opportunities provided to the petitioners by the A.C.I, they have failed to produce any evidence regarding family partition and the land as per jamabandi is joint khata of the parties. It is also averred no question of title is involved between the parities and Tehsildar has rightly rejected the objections of the petitioner and called for Naksha 'Urra' from the field staff. The counsel has referred to 1993(1) RRR 27 Prithipal Singh v. Kuldeep Singh wherein it is held as under :
"Punjab Land Revenue Act, Sections 116 and 111 - Private Partition-Objection that question of title involved and partition proceedings not maintainable - Parties recorded as co-owners in revenue records - Private partition not reflected in revenue records - There is no question of title involved - Partition proceedings maintainable."
Regarding pendency of the civil suit it is averred that the present application for partition was filed before A.C.I on 20.6.1997 whereas the civil suit was filed by the petitioner much after it i.e. on 19.5.2000 just to delay the partition proceedings. The Counsel has cited 1904(l) RRR 459 which provide as under :
"Partition - Family Partition - Unless the partition is not reflected in accordance with the provision of Land Revenue Act, Sections 111 to 123 and instrument of partition is not drawn there is no partition in the eye of law and the same cannot be implemented and there will be no severance of status of a co-sharers as such."
The counsel has also cited 1994(1) (sic) 263, 1997(1) RCR 221, 1999(1) PLJ 529, 1967 PLJ 107, 1999(4) RCR(8) 17.