Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The entire stress of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land denoted by letter 'A' is at advantageous position as it is situated near the village Abadi. It may be mentioned here that the area of plot 'A' is 26 Kanals 9 Marias while the area of plot 'B' is 57 Kanals 9 Marias. Some portion of the land from plot 'B' has also to go to the share of Krishan Chand. It is also the common case of the parties that they have installed their tubewells. The metalled road running from North to South adjoining Plot 'A' has been straightened so as to proceed ahead with road coming from West and proceeding towards Sought-East. In this manner the land of plot 'A' does not stand on any advantageous situation. Only the straightened road would touch one corner of Khasra No. 10/1 as is depicted in Annexure R3. The nearest point according to Annexure P3 of the land in possession of Punjab Singh is hardly at a distance of one Killa. It is also the common case of the parties that the use of the entire area is nothing but for agricultural purpose. This Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the decisions of the revenue authorities, though an effort has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to establish that the orders contained in Annexure P6, P8 and P9 were unjust and require reconsideration by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and that it is a fit case for remand. I am not in a position to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. While determining the mode of partition, the respect to the agreement arrived at between the parties, their settled possession since 1973, nature of the construction, installation of the tubewells, nature of cultivation, quality of the land, were duly taken note of. No violation has been shown of any of the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act on the part of the Assistant Col- lector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, and in the absence of that this Court would be slow in interfering with the well considered orders, especially Annexures P8 and P9. Even the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the order dated 5.8.1996 passed by the Collector, Jagadhri, because the appeal was dismissed giving no right to the respondents Krishan Chand and others to take up the matter further. It has been held in Mohan Singh v. Lachhman Singh, (1993-1)103 P.L.R. 643, that family partition and nature if possession can be proved by oral as well as documentary evidence. Partition given effect to and accepted by parties for some time; such partition normally should be given effect to and if the alleged family partition is not reflected in the revenue record, this omission, is not of much effect. In Joginder Singh and Ors. v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab and Ors., 1988 P.L.J. 535, it was held that "error of fact however grave it may appear to be, cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction. Only error of law apparent on the face of record can be corrected by a writ" This Court while dealing with the present writ petition cannot assume the role of an appellate Court, as held in Sohan Lal v. Financial Commissioner Punjab, 1994(1) R.R.R. 183. No violation of rules or law has been shown. Only it is shown that the partition was apparently unfair. The High Court cannot in exercises of writ jurisdiction go into the facts in the partition matter.