NARESH GULATI, FC - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division.
(2.) THE respondent Nos. 2 to 8 were served by munadi which was got done in the village on 12.10.2007 and were proceeded ex-parte on 19.11.2007. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners filed an application for the partition of land measuring 66 kanals 10 marla situated in the village Mandora Tehsil Kharkhoda Distt. Sonepat. The AC 2nd Grade Kharkhoda decided the mode of partition vide order dated 4.11.1996 and naksha kha was prepared accordingly. Naksha Zeem was also prepared on 17.6.97. Some of the co-sharers Smt. Lichhmi etc. filed an appeal before the Collector against the order dated 14.5.97. The Collector vide order dated 17.10.97 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the AC II Grade Kharkhoda with the direction to partition the total land i.e., 97 kanal 12 marlas and decide the case afresh after impleading all the parties and separate khewat should be carved out for the appellant out of the land of the vendors. The AC 1st Grade Kharkhoda ordered for the preparation of amended mode of partition vide order dated 29.6.2004. The respondent party No. 2 filed an appeal before the Collector Sonipat who vide his order dated 16.12.04 set aside the order dated 29.6.2004 passed by the AC 1st Grade Kharkhoda vide which Naksha Kha was approved. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Rohtak Division who also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.7.2006. Against this order the petitioners are before me in revision.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners re-iterated the grounds of appeal and stated that the partition proceedings in this case had been undertaken on the application dated 19.7.96 moved by the petitioners. The respondents purchased land measuring 7 kanal 18 marla from the joint khawat of co-sharers namely Rajesh and Ved Pal vide sale deed dated 4.5.99. Contentions made by the respondent Bhoop Singh etc. that they have purchased specific killa No. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 from Rajesh and Ved Pal is not tenable in the eyes of law. The sale of any specific killa No. would be considered the sale of a share in the joint holding, hence the claim of respondent Bhoop Singh over killa No. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 is bad in law. The counsel for the petitioner submitted the citation of 1981 PLJ page 204 Bhartu v. Ram Saroop. He further contended that the order of Collector, Sonipat dated 16.12.2004 being self contradictory also needs to be set aside. Similarly the un-reasoned order dated 6.7.07 passed by the Commissioner is also liable to be set aside. The petitioner Ashish Kumar and Ran Kumar were put in possession over killa No. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 and they are still in possession of the same killa numbers and their possession over these killa numbers is admitted by the respondents. The claim of the petitioners over killa Nos. 64/19/2 and 64/20/2 is justified and same have been rightly allotted to them and the respondents Bhoop Singh etc. have got no right to challenge the partition proceedings in any manner because they are not parties to the partition proceedings and if they have any grouse or claim to settle they can only file separate proceedings for partition against their vendors namely Rajesh and Ved Pal.;