RSA No.960 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.960 of 2010 Date of decision : March 04, 2010 Parkash Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Rajvir Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the appellants. *** L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) This is second appeal by legal representatives of Gurdev Singh plaintiff No.5 (since deceased). Respondents No.21 to 24 along with Gurdev Singh filed suit challenging order dated 08.10.1990 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, (Tehsildar), Bathinda, regarding partition of the suit land. The said order was affirmed by appellate and revisional authorities vide orders dated 27.03.1991 passed by Collector, dated 27.09.1994 passed by Commissioner(Appeals) and dated 05.05.1998 passed by Financial Commissioner(Appeals-1). Said orders were also challenged in the suit. RSA No.960 of 2010 -2- The plaintiffs alleged that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to partition the suit land because the same was abadi land falling within the municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Bathinda. The plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from part of the suit land which is in their possession. Defendants No.1 to 10, inter alia, pleaded that the partition order had already been implemented and possession had been delivered to different co-sharers/parties in accordance with the partition order by Kanungo on 07.12.1999 and the suit had become infructuous. It was also pleaded that partition proceedings had become final and sanad takseem was prepared on the basis of partition order dated 08.10.1990. The orders of the Revenue Courts are legal and valid. Learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2009 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. First appeal preferred by legal representatives of plaintiff No.5 Gurdev Singh has been dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of plaintiff No.5 Gurdev Singh have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. RSA No.960 of 2010 -3- Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the suit land was within municipal limits as per certificate dated 01.12.1994 Exhibit P/2 and, therefore, the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to partition the suit land. The contention carries no weight because final partition order was passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 08.10.1990 and thereupon, status of the parties, as co-sharers in the suit land, came to an end and the suit land ceased to be joint land of the parties. There is no document on record to depict that the suit land had come within the municipal limits on or before 08.10.1990. However, if partition had already been effected before the suit land came within the municipal limits, it would not denude the Revenue Courts of jurisdiction retrospectively. At the time of passing of partition order by Assistant Collector 1st Grade the suit land is not proved to be within municipal limits and, therefore, the Revenue Courts had jurisdiction to partition the suit land. The instant appeal is completely frivolous and meritless and the judgments of the lower Courts are well-reasoned. The plaintiffs having failed upto the highest Revenue Court, filed the instant suit to challenge the partition order which had attained finality. According to plaintiffs, if the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction, the plaintiffs should not have challenged the partition order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade before higher RSA No.960 of 2010 -4- Revenue Courts by way of appeal and revisions and should have straightway approached the Civil Court. Trial Court has also observed that the plaintiffs in the partition proceedings before Assistant Collector or higher Revenue Courts never raised objection that the suit land is abadi land or that it was within municipal limits and was not agricultural land. Having not raised such an objection before the Revenue Courts, plaintiffs' plea to this effect in the suit cannot be accepted. In addition to the aforesaid, plaintiff No.5 Gurdev Singh (predecessor of the appellants) admitted in his cross-examination in the witness-box that in fact, partition had been effected and the plaintiffs had even sold land out of the land allotted to them in partition. Consequently, the plaintiffs are estopped from challenging the partition after having sold some land out of the land allotted to them in partition. Gurdev Singh also admitted that there is a brick- kiln in a part of the suit land owned by defendant No.18 and the entire remaining land was being used for agricultural purposes and abadi is far away from the suit land. Consequently, the statement of Gurdev Singh (predecessor of the appellants) also establishes that the suit land was agricultural land and not abadi land. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the appeal is devoid of any merit. No question of law, much less RSA No.960 of 2010 -5- substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L.N. Mittal) March 04, 2010 Judge vcgarg