R.S.A. No. 261 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 261 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 18, 2011 Dharam Chand and others …..Appellants Vs. Smt.Shanti and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the applicant- appellants. Mr.Sudershan Makkar, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff- respondent No.1 Shanti had filed a suit for declaration, injunction and also sought possession of the share in the suit property as mentioned in the plaint challenging the partition proceedings decided by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Badhra on March 23, 1994, decision of Collector, Bhiwani in appeal decided on August 31, 1993 and R.S.A. No. 261 of 2010 [2] the order of Commissioner, Hissar Division, in revision decided on November 2, 1993. Plaintiff- respondent No.1 claimed that she alongwith the proforma defendants was owner in possession of the land measuring 15 kanals 8 marlas. The trial Court held under issue No.1 that plaintiff- respondent Shanti alongwith proforma defendants was owner of the suit land in the capacity as co-sharer but refused to grant any relief holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred under the provisions of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, as the jurisdiction lies with the Revenue Court under Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Additional District Judge, Bhiwani partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 upholding the finding of the trial Court on issue No.1 regarding the ownership of the plaintiff alongwith the proforma defendants but in view of the specific bar under Section 158 of the Land Revenue Act, refused to interfere in the orders passed by the revenue authorities while adjudicating the partition proceedings. Counsel for the defendant- appellants has contended that the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court deserves to be set aside as the civil Court has exercised jurisdiction barred under Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent. He has also argued that the suit for declaration is not maintainable in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the defendant- appellants. The Courts below while deciding issue No.1 have arrived at a R.S.A. No. 261 of 2010 [3] concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff- respondent alongwith the proforma respondents are owners in the property in dispute and that the possession of the same had been taken by the defendants in partition proceedings for which the remedy is available under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the Financial Commissioner has set aside the orders passed by the lower Revenue Authorities and set aside the partition proceedings vide order dated July 17, 1998. Both the Courts below have not exercised any jurisdiction not vested in it. Both the Courts have not adjudicated upon merits on the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector and Commissioner. There has not been any error of jurisdiction by the Courts below. No ground is made out for interfering in the findings arrived at by the Courts below. Dismissed. January 18, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE