In CIVIL APPEAL No. 1497 OF 2008-SC- Jurisdiction of Revenue Officer in cases of partition under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is concurrent with that of Civil Court, holds Top Court  
Justices Ajay Rastogi & Bela M. Trivedi [17-04-2023]

Read Judgment: JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS Vs. JAGTAR SINGH S/o DARSHAN SINGH

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 18, 2023: While allowing an appeal pertaining to the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the Supreme Court has observed that when a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question as to the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed.

Referring to Order I, Rule 9 CPC which states that no suit shall be defeated by reasons of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, the Division Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi said “...care must be taken by the court to ensure that all the parties, be it the plaintiff or the defendant, whose presence is necessary for complete and final adjudication on the issues involved in the suit, are before the court. That is the reason why the courts are empowered to strike out or add parties, at any stage of the proceedings as per Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C.”

In 1981, the plaintiff Jagtar Singh filed the two suits seeking possession of the suit lands on the ground that he was having a superior right to pre-empt those sale deeds as the co-sharer in the joint khewat, however no notice of the sale was given to the plaintiff by the said owner Jit Singh. The defendants Jhabbar Singh and others resisted the suits denying the plaintiffs claim of superior right of pre-emption.

During the pendency of the said suits, the defendant Jhabbar Singh filed a Partition case before the Assistant Collector.The defendant also filed an application before the Trial Court seeking an amendment in the written statement in the suits stating inter alia that during the pendency of the suits, the joint khata including the suit lands had been partitioned and an additional issue came to be framed by the trial court as to whether the suit land had been partitioned.

The Collector dismissed the appeal filed by the said Jagtar Singh and Others against the order passed by the Assistant Collector. In 1982, the said Jagtar Singh had filed Revision application before the Commissioner.

Both the suits came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge holding that khewat in dispute had remained no more joint and the plaintiff had lost the joint status as the co-sharer on the date of passing the judgment and decree. The First Appeals preferred by the plaintiff Jagtar Singh also came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

However, the RSAs  preferred by the plaintiff came to be allowed by the High Court and both the appeals before the Top Court arose out of this judgment.

On the right of pre-emption, the Bench noted that apart from the fact that the right of pre-emption is very weak right and capable of being defeated by all legitimate methods, the pre-emptor must establish that he had the right to pre-empt on the date of sale, on the date of the filing of the suit and on the date of the passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance.

“Since it was not disputed that the plaintiff Jagtar Singh was the co-sharer in the joint Khewat as per the Jamabandi for the year 1978-1979 (exhibit P-1), it could be safely held that the plaintiff had the right of pre-emption on the date of execution of the sale deeds in question and also on the date of filing of the suits”, the Bench held.

Placing reliance upon the Punjab Land Revenue Act and also the Haryana Land Records Manual, the Bench opined that that Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act confers discretion upon the Revenue Officer to decide the question as to the title in any property of which the partition is sought, either by himself or to refer the question to be determined by the competent court.

“Thus, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in the cases of partition is concurrent with that of the civil court”, the Bench held while also noting that when the decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118, the partition would stand completed, the joint status of the parties would stand severed and would remain no more joint, after the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case.

On the facts of the case, the Bench opined that the joint status of the parties had come to an end when the Assistant Collector passed the order and when the same was confirmed by the Collector.

As per the Bench, the trial court and the appellate court, under the circumstances, had rightly held that the plaintiff Jagtar Singh did not possess the status of co-sharer on the date of decree i.e., on December 1, 1982, and that his right of pre-emption had not survived till the date of passing of the decree in the suits.

Thus allowing the appeal, the Bench said, “In our opinion, the High Court had grossly erred in misinterpreting the provisions of Punjab Pre-emption Act and of Land Revenue Act, and in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the appellate court.