H.C.DISODIA, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have filed the instant revision petition against the impugned orders dated 4.5.1999 and 10.11.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and Collector, Sub-Division, Thanesar respectively vide which the order dated 30.6.1997 of the Assistant Collector, Thanesar approving the Naksha 'Bey' has been set aside.
(2.) FACTS of case, in brief, are that Leela Singh etc. the present respondents, moved an application before the Assistant Collector, Thanesar on 9.8.1989 for partition of land measuring 205 kanal 4 marlas comprised in Khewat Nos. 142, 156 and 143/1, Khatauni Nos. 193, 194 and 195/1 situated in village Lukhi, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 30.3.1995 confirmed Naksha 'Bey' which was challenged in appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Thanesar by the present petitioners. The Collector, Sub-Division, Thabnesar vide his order dated 26.7.1995 set aside the order dated 30.3.1995 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, Thanesar saying that the impugned order dated 30.3.1995 was not a speaking one and also issued directions to consider the 'jamabandi' for the year 1990-91 while deciding the partition. The Assistant Collector, Thanesar, vide his order dated 9.2.1996, again approved the same Naksha 'Bey' which was confirmed on 30.5.1995 but this order was again challenged in appeal before the Collector who vide his order dated 24.6.1996 again remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector with specific directions to pass a speaking order after hearing both the parties and considering the 'jamabandis' for the years 1985- 86 and 1990-91. The Assistant Collector again approved Naksha 'Bey' vide his order dated 30.6.1997 which was challenged by the present respondents Leela Singh etc. in appeal before the Collector, who vide his order dated 10.11.1997 accepted the appeal. However, the present petitioners challenged the order dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Collector, Sub-division before the Divisional Commissioner who vide his order dated 4.5.1999 affirmed the order passed by the Collector, Sub-division. Aggrieved with both the above orders of the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner, the instant revision petition has been preferred in this court. Shri Sanjiv Gupta, ld. counsel for the petitioners has argued that the orders passed by the courts below are erroneous and suffer from manifest illegalities as the joint partition qua three khewats is not maintainable. He also questioned the validity of Naksha 'Bey' as no opportunity of raising objections to the petitioner was ever provided. According to the ld. counsel, the proceedings approving the Naksha 'A' and proceedings thereafter, are not in consonance with the mode of partition. Another issue raised by the ld. counsel is that the orders dated 26.7.1995 and 24.6.1996 passed by the Collector, Sub-division vide which the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector, were never challenged and these orders had attained finality and therefore, the order dated 10.11.1997 passed by the Collect tantamounts to reviewing these two orders for which he was not competent. Lastly the ld. counsel reiterated that the Assistant Collector has failed miserably in complying with the directions of his superior authority and the impugned order dated 30.6.1997 passed by him is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the revision petition is not maintainable as second revision is not permissible under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. It was contended further that objections were raised neither at the time of passing Naksha 'A' nor at the time of approving 'Naksha Zeem'. Moreover, it was contended further that when the application for partition was filed, 'jamabandi' for the year 1985-86 only was in existence and therefore, 'jamabandis' of subsequent years cannot be considered while finalizing the partition proceedings and judgment reported in 1993 PLJ Page 348 was relied upon to substantiate the contention. Finally, it was stressed that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed as partition proceedings already stand finalised.;