Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brij Bhushan And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 September, 2009
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.14131 of 2009
Date of decision : 10.9.09
Brij Bhushan and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
S.S. SARON, J.
The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 15.10.2008 (Annexure P9) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab (respondent No.2) whereby the revision against the order dated 9.8.2007 (Annexure P7) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (respondent No.3) has been dismissed and the order dated 28.2.2007 (Annexure P6) and the order dated 9.8.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by the Collector, Garhshankar (respondent No.4) and Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Garhshankar (respondent No.3) respectively have been upheld. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to effect the partition according to the boundaries given in the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and Telu Ram (respondent No.6).
Smt. Brahmi was the owner of land measuring 8 kanals 1 marla out of total land measuring 16 kanals 2 marlas in villge Kokowal, Tehsil Garhshankar Distt. Hoshiarpur as per the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84. The CWP No.14131 of 2009 [2] said Smt. Brahmi sold her share of land in the above mentioned land to the petitioners vide sale deed dated 24.10.1985. In the said sale deed in favour of the petitioners executed by Smt. Brahmi specific boundaries of the land were mentioned as follows:-
East Land of Duman
West Road
North Pando ved etc.
South Johri
In the year 1997, Telu Ram (respondent No.6) purchased 8 kanals 1 marla of land i.e. the remaining half portion of land measuring 16 kanals 2 marlas vide sale deed dated 15.9.1997. Thereafter, Telu Ram (respondent No.6) filed an application for partition of the joint land measuring 16 kanals 2 marlas on which partition proceedings started.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are liable to be allotted land as per the boundaries depicted in the sale deed dated 24.10.1985 executed by Smt. Brahmi. It is submitted that the petitioners are not liable to be divested of the land which has been purchased by specific boundaries. It is submitted that in case the land is partitioned, the rights of the petitioners to their land in pursuance of the sale deed dated 24.10.1985 would be affected.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioners have admittedly purchased share of land measuring 16 kanals 2 marlas from Smt. Brahmi vide sale deed dated 24.10.1985. In respect of purchase of specific field numbers or area, a Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 has held that the words "sale of share CWP No.14131 of 2009 [3] of joint land" includes in its ambit any sale out of the joint holding by a co- sharer irrespective of the fact whether the land sold is fractional share or specified portion comprised of particular khasra numbers. Therefore, even if specified portion in the joint land is purchased, the same would be a purchase of the share and the co-sharers of the land can seek partition which is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987. The Full Bench decision in Bhartu's case (Supra) has been affirmed by a five Judges Bench of this Court in Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 685 (P&H) (FB) wherein it has been held that a co-owner selling land from joint khewat by reference to specific rectangles and khasra numbers the vendee would become the co-sharer in the entire joint khewat. Therefore, the vendee Telu Ram (respondent No.6) and the petitioners would be owners in the entire joint khewat and they in partition proceedings cannot claim any specific portion or field numbers. Although in the mode of partition which is settled, they may seek partition of the land by keeping their possessions intact. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the land is liable to be partitioned by keeping the boundaries in the sale deed dated 24.10.1985 intact is clearly devoid of any merit.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 10, 2009 amit