L.S.M.SALINS,J - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 27.8.2004 passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. In this, he set aside the order of 10.4.2003 passed by Collector, Jhajjar wherein he amended the order of 6.9.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Matanhail. The petitioner has also pleaded for setting aside the above said order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hatanhail.
(2.) THE facts are that the petitioner, Balbir Singh had filed an application for partition of agricultural land measuring 38 kanal 13 marla situated in village Sehlanga, Sub-Tehsil Matanhail. The said land comprised in 2 rectangles i.e. rect. No. 30 and rect. No. 73. The petitioner is owner to the extent of 1/2 share in the above mentioned agricultural land which comes to 19 kanal 6-1/2 marla. The respondents 1 to 4 are co-owners of 1/2 share of the above said agricultural land. The mode of partition was finalised by Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 4.2.2000. The respondents raised objections on 'Naksha Kha' and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order dated 6.9.2002 accepted the objections and ordered for amendment of the 'Naksha Kha'. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector who set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. Both sides filed revision appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak. The Commissioner vide his impugned order of 10.4.2003 set aside the order of Collector. Hence this revision. I have heard both sides and perused the record. The contentions of the petitioner have been carefully considered. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the Commissioner in their orders have pointed out that all share holders will need to get the different kinds of land. Assistant Collector Ist Grade has further pointed out that land located in rect. 30 is on the village road and hence is more valuable. The order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade shows that on his inspection he found the petitioner in cultivation of land situated in rect. No. 73 also. Thus it is not appropriate on his part to claim only the land in rect. No. 30. Therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the partition or violation of the mode of partition. In view thereof this petition is dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.;