KUSUMJIT SIDHU, F.C. - (1.) THIS case has been taken up for hearing in compliance with the order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 14172 of 2006 restoring the ROR No. original number and position which was dismissed in default vide order dated 6.3.2006 and further the application for restoration of the case was dismissed vide order dated 13.7.206 passed by the then Ld. Financial Commissioner (Tourism,) Punjab, Chandigarh.
(2.) THIS case relates to the partition of land (fully detailed in the heading of the partition application filed by the respondent Mohinder Kaur and Ors before the AC 1st grade, Kapurthala, decided on 31.8.1999. The brief facts of the case have already been given by the order dated 13.7.2006 mentioned above and need not to be repeated. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same points as mentioned in the petition. Assailing the impugned orders dated 10.9.1992 passed by the Commissioner and order dated 31.8.1999 passed by the A.C. 1st Grade, Kapurthala, he argued that these orders are not legal and justified. He argued that the petitioners purchased the land in dispute bearing Khasra Nos. 665 and 671 from Raj Kumar in 1990. They are in peaceful possession where they have constructed a pucca house and have also installed an electric tubewell motor for the purpose of irrigation. He argued that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have purchased this land measuring 13K 5M from one Santosh Kumari from her respective share in the year 1981 vide sale deed of dated 11.6.81 who were never in the possession of the above said land and even these respondents have not been delivered the possession of the land till date. He argued that the respondents have not filed any appeal against the mode of partition. He argued that the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the Collector is justified which has been passed strictly as per clause 2 of the MOP vide which possession of the land in dispute, has to be kept intact. He has rightly rejected the order dated 31.8.99 passed by the A.C. 1st Grade, Kapurthala. Moreover, the Civil Court vide its order dated 16.2.85 has also rejected the claim of the respondent in the case filed by the respondent Mohinder Kaur against Raj Kumar. He further argued that as per settled law the partition is always done as per khewat and further more in the disputed khasra Nos. 665 and 671 excess land is still lying and as per the share of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, the same can be provided to them in these khasra Nos. On these grounds he argued that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner and the A.C. 1st Grade may be quashed and the order of the Collector dated 22.2.2000 be restored which is well reasoned and justified.
(3.) ON the other hand counsel for the respondent argued on the same lines of submissions made before the Commissioner and the A.C. 1st Grade Kapurthala. He argued that the A.C. 1st Grade has rightly sanctioned the final partition in accordance with the mode to partition. No appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the MOP. He finally argued that the Sanad Takseem has already been issued on 13.11.2003 in the case which may be acted upon. On these grounds, he argued that order of the Commissioner and A.C. 1st are legal and justified which may be upheld and order of the Collector may not be restored as it contains perversity.;