1. This revision petition has been filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the orders dated 14.12.2010, 09.11.2009 and 29.07.2009 passed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, Collector Sub Division, Bassi Pathana and Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bassi Pathana respectively in a Partition case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that present respondent no.1 filed an application for partition of land measuring 37 Bighas 17 Biswas as per Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 situated in village Gopalon, Tehsil Bassi Pathana and District Fatehgarh Sahib. After hearing both parties and perusing the record placed on the file, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bassi Pathana approved Naksha ''Arra'' ad called Naksha ''Irri'' from the field revenue staff vide order dated 29.7.2009.
3. Aggrieved by this order, present petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Sub Division, Bassi Pathana on the grounds that Naksha ''Arra'' was not prepared in accordance with the proposed ''Mode of Partition''. The Collector Sub Division, Bassi Pathana vide order dated 09.11.2009 dismissed the appeal.
4. Aggrieved by this order, present petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala on the ground that possession of the parties had been disturbed. The Commissioner, Patiala, vide order dated 14.12.2010, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the fragmentation of holdings has to be avoided. The petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No.25561 of 2012 tilted as "Babu Singh v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others" before the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.3.2013 in view of restoration of the power of the Financial Commissioner under Section 16(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Financial Commissioner within 30 days. It was also observed that the question of limitation will not be raised. Hence the present revision petition.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the site plan clearly shows that Amar Singh has been allotted whole land in khasra no. 455/2 (12-5) which is on a pacca path and near the abadi. On the other hand petitioner and his brother Gurmeet Singh have been given land at a distance of two and half kilometer from village abadi in a second tak. The reason given by the Learned Courts below for not giving the proportional area out of khasra no. 455 to all three brother is that it will not be fit and proper for cultivation which is factually incorrect. An area 4.75 bigha is equal to one acre and total area of khasra no. 455 is 14 Bighas-4 Biswas. Thus, everyone will get more than 4.75 Bighas of land and can cultivate the same properly. The difference in value of both the taks is very much evident from the record of the case. Thus, lower revenue officers had committed an error by giving whole land to Amar Singh (respondent no.1) on pacca path in khasra no. 455/2. The petitioner is ready to exchange his land with Amar Singh as Amar Singh claimed during arguments that whole land is Chahi. Even Tubewell in khasra no. 455 is also in the name of Bachan Singh who is father of the petitioner and respondent no. 1 and 2. Thus, all the impugned orders and sanad takseem deserve to be set aside and the case may be remanded back to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bassi Pathana to decide afresh and land on pacca road may be divided equally between all the three brothers.
6. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the photographs also show that there is a pacca path upto khasra no. 455. Even abadi is also there at pacca road which is coming upto khasra no. 455. Thus, the said land is more valuable than area in tak no.2. The Ld. Counsel prayed that equal area be distributed between all the co-shares in all taks. That the Hon''ble High Court has decided CWP No.18094 of 2009 on 01/03/2012 and CWP No. 20085 of 2009 on 16/01/2012 in which it has been held that land should be partitioned as per quality of land and front should be given to all co-shares.
7. The Counsel for the respondent has contended that the paths leading to the two taks are similar. That there is no pacca path abutting khasra No.455 and it is not located near the abadi. He further contended that the equality and value of land in both the taks is same. Sanad takseem has been issued, therefore lower Court orders should not be disturbed.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record available on the file. The contention of the respondent that since Sannad Takseem has been issued therefore it should not be disturbed is not tenable in view of section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Very wide and plenary powers have been vested in the Financial Commissioner to call for, examine and revise any order of the lower Revenue Court. I find support from a ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as Girvar v. Financial Commissioner Haryana, 1996 (3) PLR 626. The Hon''ble High Court held that the Financial Commissioner can go in to question of both law and fact in revisional proceedings. Hence this Court is competent to quash the Sannad Takseem in revision proceeding if it has been prepared by doing injustice to some party. The revision petitioner''s main grievance is that he has not been given his share in khasra No. 455 which is abutting the pacca path and near the village inhabitation. He contends that land of khasra No.455 is more valuable in comparison to the land comprised in other khasra No''s. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents has argued that all the lands are of same value and adjoining the village paths. Justice demands that the land should be partitioned while keeping the value, quality and location of land in mind. If a portion of land touches some pacca road or is near village inhabitation, naturally it will have more value. And if some front portion of land touches some main road, all the parties should be given equal portion of the front. Whether the land is situated on pacca road or it is situated near village abadi are questions of disputed facts which can be ascertained only through evidence or a visit to the place where land under partition is situated. Therefore the Sannad Takseem is quashed, impugned orders are set aside and case remanded to ACIG concerned for deciding the case afresh after visit to the spot where land under partition is situated and after taking evidence if any led by parties.
9. Announced in open court.