K.S.JANJUA, J. - (1.) THE instant revision petition is preferred against orders of Commissioner, Jalandhar (30.6.1997) and Collector, Sub-Division, Jalandhar (4.2.1993) in a petition case.
(2.) HISTORY of this case has been recorded in the order of Commissioner, Jalandhar which may be read as a part of this order. Sh. T.R. Vij, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that the partition was approved by AC-1, Jalandhar on 25.1.1988 but the order was challenged before Collector in a separate appeal who remanded back to AC-1 for fresh decision. However, AC-1 maintained his earlier order. This was again assailed by the petitioners before Collector. While accepting the appeal (11.9.1989) the Collector observed that area purchased by the persons after the sale of 20K-19M in 1952 in favour of the present appellant's father is retrievable from the last vendee. He submitted further that after the death of Lal Singh, the land was inherited by the present petitioners whose rights being first vendee of co-sharer Udho were to be safeguarded. After listening to the parties and considering evidence adduced before him, he ordered (30.1.1992) that the area be deducted from the last vendee. Appeal of the respondents was accepted by the Collector who again remanded the case to AC-1, Jalandhar for properly deciding the question of title. Order of Collector (4.2.1993) was challenged before Commissioner, Jalandhar who while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners passed a contradictory order due to which the case has been again put in endless litigation. The counsel for the petitioners contended further that it was a simple case of partition of land between the co-owners of various khewats and to safeguard the rights of bona fide vendees under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The area sold in excess of share is to be deducted from the last vendee. The father of the petitioners had purchased land in year 1952 and he has been in possession since then. The Collector and Commissioner have wrongly set aside the well reasonable order of AC-1. They have failed to observe that the case is lingering on un-necessarily for want of clear directions from the higher courts. In the end it was prayed by the counsel that revision petition be accepted setting aside the impugned orders with the direction to deduct excess area from the last vendee and effect partition as per Collector's orders of 11.9.1989. In support of his contentions he cited 1990 - PLJ 177.
(3.) CONTROVERTING the above arguments Sh. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate who represented the respondents No. 1 and 3 stated that question of title was involved in this case which should have been decided as a civil Court after following the procedure prescribed in the CPC. Order of 30.1.1992 suffers from serious legal infirmities and is, therefore, bad in law. The question of title must have been decided properly before proceeding further with the partition case. Since AC-1 has omitted to do so, his order was rightly set aside by the Collector, Jalandhar. The respondents are the bona fide purchasers for consideration and deserve protection. He urged dismissal of revision petition and for upholding of the order of Commissioner and Collector.;