Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)Jagga Singh vs Surjeet Singh And Ors. on 27 March, 2000
As regards the jurisdiction of the revenue Court for entertaining
the application for partition in respect of nature of the land being
Gairmumkin "Ruri", I am of the view that relevant finding of the
Commissioner as noticed by the Financial Commissioner extracted above,
the revenue record do not reflect the nature of the land to be Gairmumkin
"Abadi" but Gairmumkin "Ruri". Since Gairmumkin "Ruri" land meant for
keeping manure, therefore, there could not be expressed bar as provided
under Section 158 of 1887 Act. The ratio decidendi culled out by this Court
in Jagga Singh's case (supra) also deals with the aforementioned
proposition.
Surjit Singh vs Financial Commissioner Appeals-Ii on 7 January, 2011
The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh vs.
Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and others 2012(5) RCR
683 has held that if part of the land sought to be partitioned in abadi, i.e.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2017 09:56:44 :::
CWP No.550 of 2012 (O&M) {6}
cultivable/chahi, in such circumstances, the remedy to seek partition would
vest with the Civil Court but not with the Revenue Court which on facts is
not appreciated. In my view, the findings rendered by the Financial
Commissioner are perfectly legal and justified, much less do not call for any
interference. The authorities below have taken into consideration the
potentiality, quality and nature of the land, much less parity.
1