ORDER Present:- IN

Appeal By ActOrder
PassedOrder
Under District
Bathinda
12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5 4. 3. 2 1
and Bathinda.SinghSatpal THE
Under Ajmer
Collector,
Kheta Karnail The State
Sub Punjab,
Section village
TheVilage JasbirWariam
Narminder Bathinda. No.Singh
BinderMohinder
Singh COMMISSIONER,
CHANDIGARH
Sh. Sh.
Bank,
UCO s/oKaur PUNJAB,
COURT
Bathinda
Which Punjab 4 Assistant
Divisional Kheta
Tehsil of
Sherry
R.S.Chauhan, Jumba,Kaur
Singh
s/o
to Kaur SinghSingh Punjab aged
Bhag
7 Kaur Sub Punjab, OF
and Singh
@ Singh
Assistant Revision
land
residents @ s/o son Collector about
Singla, Tehsil
Manjit s/o Mandeep
Singh Division, SH.
revenue Jhumba Sindh s/oBhag wifeBhag Magistrate,
of Civil resident 49 ROR
Village through
Jhumba, Bhag Secretariat, SARVJIT
Collector, Petition Advocate,
Advocate, andKaur Chet s/o of years
Bank, Singh of SinghBathinda. lst Versus 298
District
widow Singh Kheta Kaur Karnail Grade-cum-Naib
Singh of
Act, Tehsil village Bathinda Chief
village wife of
under dispute
Partition/35
1887.Claim/Land under Gidderbaha,
Bathinda.
District s/o wife 2022
Ist Counsel
Counsel s/o Singh Singh SINGH,
Bathinda. ofKheta Chandigarh.
Secretary of
Grade, Section and Jumba, of Waryam
Jarnail
Chhota Jhumba,
District Respondents
.Contesting Gurpreet exercising
Respondents.
for.Proforma Singh son IAS,
Kanal for
Bathinda. 16 th e SinghSingh Tehsil Tehsildar,
Petitioner. of to TehsilSingh FINANCIAL
of 16 respondents Bathinda.
Singh
BhagSingh Government
the residents th
Marla and and son
Punjab s/o Bathinda. .Petitioner
District Ajmer District of
of Bhag
si of
impugned Collector,
beforeobjections
and the prepared
parties for jn Petitioner:Officer DrawingRecord
Reasos delay
Borne bythe Appeal
aside. upholding the lallotted
lapplications isuitable comehaving dismissedcircumstancesthat the beGroundIArgument
application Counsel of
Partition
Signed Reascns for aDelay
Appeal
cited nyfiling
if In Date
set the the
aggrieved orders paties applicationparties of
to village at by
so toland fact aside year Order
ordersare the filed that after the the for Revenue
Ann.
dated also for that on and 2014-15 for
the
order with by clubbing no partition petitioner of the being Jhumba,
of partition A under
their Court they illegally
for petitioner
Bathinda.
CollectorThe 20.02.2018 the grouse and basis th e Yes
the Yes days 290
illegal of petitioner choice. with are partition unjustified perverse,
case and That Yes 20
both to of sought Tehsil of 032018
A.C.Ist same, ofThat
and would make the clean joint which the land
and
applications the That co-sharer filed orders and argued
against
Grade. petitioner
alongwith havepassed be afresh Courts the hands
others
land the
without measuring
they District
arise so Naksha
by the
the that
inferior sought
respondents of
Counsel by Naksha below and in considering ld. respondents
law and between as the Bathinda 35
it Jeem. Courts
rejected
others
A.C.Ist
well could quality they landpartial Kanal
and ought contrary
submitted as Bay sought and Counsel below as 16
is the be of partition are the
Gradeobjections
liable filed
his rejected and to per Marla no.
been parties. convenient club land they
liable objections of are
partition 4
to appeal an
whereby Jeem has havedespitesubmitted factsjamabandi to
be that both liable situated
appeal of to 7
set thel Thal the been and filed
by be for the of not be of to
 tdated
he
Chandigarh, this
therefore together. share
However, sharerecord was produced attainapproved, |dated
petitioner
following by
29"
suit
|petitioner directedobjections
the the|Gradebefore Consequently, as Counsel
A.C.Ist
manner. land warrantpresent
May, of in on as the approved finality 05.07.2017
the However land the file. vide toon the for
Announced her has per raised Grade,
2023 ofcase be raised
Collector the
petition As inpleakhewat registered
I its record, and due
yrgst in other
Inhave possessions
sold produce vide the
none
the the
the Sanad order by was respondent
aBathinda
process
is
heard
the was order the same question
and
is present to
khewats that vide
hoz,
¥t
dismissed.present
different sale land partition dated
rejected petitioner which never was thereafter
on of
of
the
registered counsels were file. dated the is
23 case same case measuring
deed 07.04.2021. That the approved
challenged. oflaw. legalargued
1872 partition and has 20.02.2018 petitioner party title
the dated issued. were It and
s co-sharers for beenupholding the which is that
petitioner allsitting
are sale
the worth
Financial
partition
petitioner the 12 appeal rejected raised finalized
cases 02.07.2021. Counselissued
Counsel That on the
Chandigarh
Punjab, deed parties Kanal the filed mode was
(Sarvjit
Singh) and 26.09.2017, submitting partn
Commissioner hascannotshould had 0 on order
filed and the the any rejected the
dated submitted Naksha of
and Marla10.01.2022submitted Naskha
by objections.
the BEQceecHng
no sold objection
locus be 02.07.2021. perused
of the
Naksha
partition here orders
be the which vide
her out
petitioner jeem Bey
decided overher
linked that thatA.C.lst
that pßsed
standi entirel of order
thel thel thel and was bey The was has and was the after
in in