Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Ami Singh and others (respondent No. 34 to 38) as also Manphool Singh filed an appeal against the order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P.6) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent no.2) whereby changes had been made in 'Naksha-Bey' in the manner as are mentioned in the order (Annexure P-6) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (respondent No.2). The same it was submitted was wrong. Besides, Baljit Singh (Petitioner) also filed an appeal against the order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Thanesar (respondent No.2). Both the appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 13.02.2003 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Collector, Thanesar (respondent No.3). After referring to the earlier litigation between the parties, it was found that the Assistant Collector in terms of its order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-6), which was under appeal had ordered that Baljit Singh (petitioner) be provided southern side of khasra Nos.1161, 1162/1 and 1156/2 and the area of Manphool Singh be completed from the northern side of khasra Nos.1156 and 1155 min. The lower Court (Assistant Collector Ist Grade) it was observed had maintained the path which was earlier provided from Khasra nos.1143, 1327, 1332, 1343, 1345/2 and 1355/2. Ami Singh etc. (respondents No.34 to 40) had filed the appeal mainly against the 'Rasta' (passage). It was submitted that the lower Court (Assistant Collector Ist Grade) had provided 'Rasta' from 6 killas due to which 50 marlas of land was wasted and in case Baljit Singh (petitioner) was provided 'Rasta ' of two 'Gathas' near the northern corner of khasra No.1169 only 6-7 marlas land would be covered in the 'Rasta'. Baljit Singh (petitioner) had been using this 'Rasta' for going to his 'kurrahs' for the last 50 years. The 'kurrahs' of Baljit Singh had also got 'pacca Gohar' of three 'Gathas' in the west which had been taken out of killa numbers of this land; besides, in the south Amar Singh (sic. Ami Singh) etc. had also left 'Gohar' of two 'Gathas' which was being used continuously by Baljit Singh. There was no objection of any one with the partition in the above said manner. It was also submitted that the loss of area of Hukam Singh (respondent No.35) could be fulfilled out of khasra No.1140 because Baljit Singh had already got more area which would be taken out of the same. In this manner, there was no need to touch the area of Ami Singh and his area was already complete. The land of 18 marlas given to Shish Pal in the other 'kurrah', it was submitted, was illegal. All the 'kurrahs' were disturbed by doing this. Shiv Singh had possession of both the 'kurrahs'. If 18 marlas of land was given to Shiv Singh from the second chak of southern land then there would be no loss to anyone. The area of every party could be completed by providing the area of adjoining land. It was prayed that area of Hukam Singh (respondent No.35) be completed out of the 'kurrah' of khasra No.1140 of Baljit Singh. Baljit Singh it was submitted be provided area near southern 'Dol' of khasra Nos.1169 and 1168 and two 'kurrahs' of Shishpal be not prepared and his area be completed from the adjoining area. Baljit Singh (petitioner) it was observed was dissatisfied with the order under appeal i.e. Order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-6) because he had been provided khasra No.1161 and Khasra Nos.1155 and 1156 were given to Manphool Singh. It was submitted that khasra No.1161 from the very beginning was in possession of Manphool Singh and the area of Khasra Nos.1155 and 1156 was in his (Baljit Singh's) possession. The partition of land, it was submitted by Baljit Singh had not been made by keeping the possession intact. It was prayed that the order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-6) under appeal be set aside.

The Collector, Thanesar (respondent No.3) after hearing learned counsel for the parties found that 'Rasta' provided to 'Kurrah' of Baljit Singh from Khasra Nos.1143, 1327, 1332, 1343, 1345/2 and 1355/2 was totally wrong and there was no justification because too much land was wasted by doing so and that 'Rasta' could have been provided from only one khasra No.1169 to connect his 'Kurrah' to 'Gohar'; besides, there was also another 'Rasta' of two 'Gathas' on the southern side to the 'Kurrah' of Baljit Singh which he had been using from the very beginning. This had been left by Amar Singh etc. and there was an entry in the revenue record of this 'Rasta'. Baljit Singh had been using this 'Rasta' for the last too much time. If there had been problem of 'Rasta', the case for partition could have been filed by him (Baljit Singh) whereas the case had been initiated by Ami Singh and Hukam Singh (respondents No.34 and 35) etc. It was observed that 'Rasta' provided to Baljit Singh by the lower Court had been provided keeping in view the 'pucca' road, which was not justified. As such the 'Rasta', it was ordered, be provided from Khasra No.1169 to 'Kurrah' of Baljit Singh. If there was somewhat less area of Hukam Singh (respondent No.35), it was ordered to be completed from the adjoining khasra No.1140. Shishpal had got proper land. As such the appeal of Ami Singh etc. (respondents No.34 to 38) was accepted accordingly. The appeal of Baljit Singh was found to be baseless. It was observed that it was wrong to say that khasra No.1161 given to him was 'kallar' (fallow) land whereas as per revenue record, this land was 'chahi'. This khasra was two kilometer away from the 'kurrah' of Manphool Singh and he was facing difficulty in cultivation. There was no force found in the plea of Baljit Singh that the girdhwari of khasra No.1161 was in the name of Manphool Singh because there were wrong entries of girdawaries in the joint khata. Manphool Singh had produced copy of girdawari wherein the entries of cultivation of khasra No.1330/2, 1331 and 1332 had been shown in the name of Baljit Singh but the said land was not in his (Baljit Singh's) possession. Likewise, girdawari of khasra No.1341 was in the name of Jaipal Singh but he was not in possession of this khasra. Therefore, keeping in view the position at the spot, Baljit Singh it was held had rightly been given khasra No.1161 and in the eastern side and southern side of it, there was land of khasra Nos.1162 and 1168 pertaining to Baljit Singh. In terms of the order under appeal i.e. the order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-6) to complete the area of Manphool Singh, the land in Khasra Nos.1155 and 1156 towards North given to him (Manphool Singh) was held to be justified because as per criteria of partition, the difference was to be completed from the adjoining area. As such the appeal of Baljit Singh was found to be baseless and rejected.