- (1.) Petitioner No. 1, a former Judge of a High Court and senior citizen, is aggrieved against the act of a revenue officer whereby his application under Section 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (in short 'the Act') for affirmation of partition, privately effected, has been declined. Resultantly, instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-- "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari bringing up the entire records relating to the petitioners warabandi, from 1977 till date, and orders passed from time to time concerning the said warabandi by respondent No. 2 and/or his superiors, granting warabandi (turn of water) in respect of the land comprised in Killa No. 155/7 (6-0) in the area of village Chak Ruldu Singh Wala, and also the entire record relating to his ordering on 6.7.2001 to restore the petitioners warabandi and thereafter, under the garb of orders from an Ex. En. refusing to implement the said order and thereby compounding the contempt of court by his brazen refusal to obey the orders of the Civil Judge dated 4.12.1998 and 4.10.1999, as affirmed by the Addl. Distt. Judge in appeal on 23.12.2000. (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, bringing up the records and quashing all his illegal and mala fide orders, passed by respondent No. 2 and/or his superior from time to time, since April 2001 till date purporting to grant permission to a third party to dig a water course through the private property comprised in rectangle No. 92 in the same village, belonging exclusively to the petitioner. (iii) Issue a writ of certiorari, bringing up the record of application, dated 23.1.2001, made by petitioner No. 1 under Section 123, Punjab Land Revenue Act before respondent No. 5 with a view to examining the mala fide manner in which respondent No. 5 has been refusing to exercise his jurisdiction so that the matter may be prolonged to the detriment of the petitioner. (iv) Issue a writ of certiorari, bringing up the entire record relating to Agriculture Power No. 258 Village Chak Ruldu Singh Wala from the very inception of that connection including the proceedings in respect of it's disconnection on permanent basis on 29.05.1998; also bringing up the applications made by the petitioner and Jangir Singh on and after 17.8.1998 for the restoration of A.P. No. 258 to its original tube-well and the proceedings and orders etc. made by respondent No. 6 and 7/or their subordinates including all the alleged applications of S. Jangir Singh and the proceedings taken thereon for the so called shifting of A.P. No. 258 from the petitioner's tube-well to the tube-well of Jangir Singh and the entire record of the alleged shifting upto the date 23.03.1999. (v) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 1 to take action in accordance with the relevant rules, regulations and instructions, on the written complaint (Notice of Demand) dated 1.6.2000, supported by affidavit dated 2.6.2001, containing seven different transactions spread over a period of three years, constituting seven charges of serious misconduct against respondents No. 8 and 9, involving abuse of their official position and power with the malicious intention of depriving the petitioner equal protection of the laws of the land and thus oust him from all of his ancestral property in the State of Punjab. (vi) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 3 to submit final police report without any further delay under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code into the written complaint dated 30.7.1998, and also to investigate and make similar reports in respect of all FIRs lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Sangat during the last four months, with a connected direction to respondent No. 4 to let respondent No. 3 to do his duty without any outside interference. (vii) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 3 & 4 to refrain from harassing petitioners and humiliating the petitioners tenant namely Surjit Singh S/o. Kirpal Singh and tenant's son, namely Janak Singh and their workmen and calling them to police station or to police post without any order in writing as required by law. (viii) advance notices to the respondents may kindly be dispensed with. (ix) certified copies of the annexures may kindly be dispensed with. (x) to allow costs of, and incidental to this petition, to the petitioner. (xi) And this Hon'ble Court may pass such other order appropriate writ or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 and his brother Jangir Singh Sidhu (added as respondent No. 10 in the amended memo of parties) were having joint immovable property within the revenue limits of village Chak Ruldu Singh Wala within District Bathinda.
(2.) During the course of hearing, petitioners (who are present in Court along with their counsel) submitted that they have joint holdings with respondent No. 10 in village Chak Ruldu Singh Wala and adjoining village Pathrala and also submitted an application, which is taken on record. Vakalatnama of Shri Sukhraj Singh Brar, Advocate has also been filed along with the application. The objection raised by the Registry regarding non-filing of power of attorney stands complied with. Registry will register and assign a number to the application. In the application it has been stated that petitioners do not claim any relief against respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, specifically with regard to prayer clause Nos. (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii). In view of this, directions are required to be issued only to respondent No. 5 - Tehsildar, Tehsil Bathinda and also to respondent No. 10 to appear before the Tehsildar, exercising the powers of Assistant Collector Ist Grade under the provisions of the Act. It is the case set up by the petitioners that they are owners in possession of the land in question which came to their share in oral partition arrived at between the parties. It is also submitted that petitioners as well as respondent No. 10, who had earlier agreed to partition the land are still ad idem to those terms, which have been agreed between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 10. It is the specific prayer of the petitioners that said partition is a private partition, although it is oral between the parties but is being adhered to since long, the same should be reflected in the revenue record in view of Section 123 of the Act. So they are limiting their claim only to direct respondent No. 5 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to the said partition. Another prayer has also been made that since the matter is lingering on for many years and already many rounds of litigation have taken place whereby rights qua oral partition have been affirmed, direction may be issued to Assistant Collector-cum-Tehsildar to affirm partition after hearing the petitioners as well as respondent No. 10. It is contended by the petitioners that they have already given their affidavits and respondent No. 10 has agreed to tender affidavit before the Assistant Collector-cum-Tehsildar.
(3.) If respondent No. 10, who was a co-sharer in the property in question, tenders his affidavit, then the Assistant Collector-cum-Tehsildar shall act in accordance with law, specifically in consonance with the provisions of Section 123 of the Act and make entries in the record of rights accordingly. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 10 is 95 years old and in view of his advance age may not be in a position to personally appear before the Assistant Collector. If that is so, if his power of attorney or affidavit, if any, is filed that will be considered for the purpose of implementation of the partition in the revenue record. It is also directed that Assistant Collector-cum-Tehsildar may visit the village under intimation to the parties and verify the factum of oral partition from respondent No. 10 at the point of time of his visit to the village.;