Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.66 seconds)Suraj Bhan Kailsh Chand And Anr. vs Hari Shankar Vashist And Anr. on 28 August, 1970
9. Vide order dated 13.5.1996 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Jagadhari, partition was sanctioned according to Naksha Jeem. In appeal this order was confirmed by the Collector vide order dated 5.8.1996. I will make a brief reference of the relevant orders in the subsequent portion of this judgment, but first of all I would like to refer to a document dated 21.11.1973 (Annexure R1), written between Punjab Singh, petitioner No. 1, and Krishan Chand, respondent No. 5, when these two real brothers agreed to a mode of partition by clearly admitting that they were cultivating the land till then jointly and that of their own free will and consent had partitioned the land in-between. Advantage has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondents of this document by pleading that once a partition between the parties had taken place voluntarily in the year 1973, that partition should not be disturbed because such agreement and arrangement was respected to even by the revenue authorities. This submission of the learned counsel for the respondents has been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the grounds that it has not been proved that Punjab Singh was signatory of this document; that he was even competent to enter into any partition arrangement on behalf of his other brothers and that this document was never reported to the revenue authorities nor was ever acted upon or entered into in any of the revenue records and, therefore, Annexure R1 has to be ignored. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is partly correct in view of the citation reported as Suba Singh v. Mohinder Singh and Ors., (1983)85 P.L.R. 613; and Chander Bhan v. Hari Ram and Ors., 1996 P.L.J. 69; but advantage cannot be availed of by the learned counsel for the petitioners in totality because I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, who had taken into consideration that the mode of partition suggested by the Assistant Collector was based on the settled possession of respective parties with regard to their shares and it should not be disturbed keeping in view the nature of the land.
Joginder Singh And Ors. vs Director, Consolidation Of Holdings, ... on 8 August, 1988
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.
Sohan Lal vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals), ... on 28 September, 1993
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.
Mohan Singh And Ors. vs Lachhman Singh on 13 January, 1992
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.
1