Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16456 = 2021(2) L.A.R. 569
Decided on: 31.08.2021
Present:
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 111-121 -- Partition of land – Consolidate takh – Preservation of possession – Principle of partition -- Financial Commissioner held that grant of consolidated and compact takh is also a principle of partition and that preservation of possession does not over-ride the said principle -- Both principles have to co-exist as far as possible – Mode of partition provides for one kurra for respondent No.5 and it also provides for keeping the possession intact -- However, if the stipulation regarding keeping the possession intact was to be rigidly adhered to, respondent No.5 could not have been granted one kurra – Held, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in observing that maintenance of possession and grant of consolidated takh are both principles of partition and they have to co-exist.
(Para 4, 5)
***
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the Learned Financial Commissioner, whereby their revision petition has been dismissed.
2. The mode of partition was accepted on 24.09.2008 and no appeal was preferred against the said order. It provided for one kurra for respondent No.5 and also provided for keeping the possession intact. Sanad takseem was issued on 12.11.2012. The same was challenged by way of revision before the learned Financial Commissioner and this challenge has failed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that possession of the parties could not have been disturbed under any circumstances as the mode of partition provided for the same. The learned Financial Commissioner has failed to keep this aspect in mind and, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Financial Commissioner has held that grant of consolidated and compact takh is also a principle of partition and that preservation of possession does not over-ride the said principle. Both principles have to co-exist as far as possible.
5. As has been noted hereinabove, the mode of partition provides for one kurra for respondent No.5 and it also provides for keeping the possession intact. However, if the stipulation regarding keeping the possession intact was to be rigidly adhered to, respondent No.5 could not have been granted one kurra. Thus, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in observing that maintenance of possession and grant of consolidated takh are both principles of partition and they have to co-exist.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********