VEENA EAGLETON,J - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order of Commissioner, Ambala Division dated 31.8.1999, Collector Yamunanagar dated 31.3.1997 and the Assistant Collector dated 9.1.1996 vide which the partition was sanctioned.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent Gaje Singh etc. filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, for partition of the land measuring 165 Kanal, 4 Marla situated in Village Bhagwangarh, Had Bast No. 398, Tehsil Jagadhri and the land measuring 353 Kanal 14 Marla situated in the same village. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade vide his order dated 22.8.1994 sanctioned the mode of partition. Against the order of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, respondent Gaje Singh filed his appeal before the Collector. The Collector vide his order dated 22.11.1994 set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for partition as per statement of the parties dated 13.9.1993. Against the order dated 22.11.1994 of the Collector, the petitioners filed two appeals before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. The Commissioner rejected the appeals vide his order dated 19.4.1995. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade proceeded with the case and vide his order dated 19.1.1996, rejected the objections of respondents and issued the mode of partition w.e.f. 23.6.1997. Against this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector who dismissed it on 31.3.1997. The petitioners filed revision before the Commissioner. After going through the record and hearing both the parties, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the partition has been made as per the statement of the parties dated 13.9.1993 which was made before the Assistant Collector who personally visited the disputed land and in view of it, the Commissioner dismissed the revision vide his order dated 31.8.1999. Now the petitioners have approached this Court against the order of the Commissioner.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner argued that the Collector had remanded the case to the Assistant Collector to decide the case according to the statement of the parties. But the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade made major changes which led to fragmentation of the land of the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections against this petition which was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade. The appeal filed before the learned Collector and the Commissioner was also dismissed. The counsel contended that both the Courts did not appreciate the fact that major changes were made by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade according to mode of partition.;