K.K.BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 9.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide which the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order dated 5.2.2001 of the S.D.M.-cum-Collector, Tarn Taran was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Harjinder Singh and others filed an application before the Tehsildar-cum-A.C. 1st Grade, Tarn Taran for partition of their land measuring 224 Kanals and 16 Marlas situated in village Sanghe, Tehsil Tarn Taran, Distt. Amritsar. The significant point to note is that when parties appeared before A.C. 1st Grade, he amended the Mode of Partition and both the parties agreed to the amendment. In cases of partition of land, the position of the revenue officers is extremely difficult. It has been held under rulings given by various Courts that the Mode of Partition should be such that the following points shall be kept in mind :- a) Possession is not disturbed; b) The amount of land and the quality of land given to each follows the pattern decided and the will, if any; c) Enough land should be left for common purposes like passage, water courses etc. d) Patches of land and gardens should be given independent facilities for irrigation. e) A passage to every one's individual land should be provided. f) All land of a party is in one block. In practice it is often difficult to ensure all these points to the complete satisfaction of all the parties. However, the above points grant reasons for both parties approach higher and higher Courts, with a complaint that they were not satisfied with the terms of partition on one point or the other. Therefore, the most logical and correct method of partition is where all parties are heard and they agreed to the Mode of Partition.
(3.) IN this case, I find that A.C. 1st Grade, after hearing all parties, has made a detailed and reasoned order which has been agreed to by all parties. However, before higher revenue Courts, petitioners have again said that they are not satisfied on one point or the other. When both the parties appeared before A.C. 1st Grade, they had agreed to the Mode of Partition as amended. Thus they have no locus standi to approach the higher revenue authorities. Therefore, the order made by A.C. 1st is upheld and the revision petition filed by Kulwinder Singh etc. is dismissed. Orders be communicated to the parties. Petition dismissed.;