Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Vide a detailed order dated 30.07.2018, this Court had directed learned counsel for the petitioner to place on record the Jamabandi and the Khasra
Girdawari in respect of the suit land, as it existed immediately prior to the filing of the suit, that order is now sought to be complied with vide an
application filed, i.e. CM No. 22204-CII-2018, to the extent that a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2005-06, pertaining to the revenue estate of
village Bhondsi, Tehsil Sohna, is sought to be placed on record, along with a site plan.
Upon query to learned counsel as to whether, against the order of the Assistant Collector, partitioning the suit property (allegedly without notice having
been issued to the petitioner), any appeal had been filed before the appropriate revenue authority, he has produced in Court today an order dated
21.09.2018, passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, by which, upon an appeal filed by the petitioner against the respondents, the matter has
been remanded to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sohna, with a direction that fresh orders on the application for partition of the suit property be
passed, after hearing both sides.
That being so, I do not see any infirmity in any case in the impugned order, by which it has been held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the
matter, partition being subject matter only of the competent revenue authority, (in terms of Section 158 (2) (xvii) of the Punjab Land Revenue, Act,
1887).
The said provision reproduced hereinunder:-
“158. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue-officers: -Except as otherwise provided by this Act-
xxxx   xxxx   xxxx   xxxx   xxxx
(2) a Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely: -
xxxx   xxxx   xxxx   xxxx   xxxx
(xvii)Â Â Â any claim for partition of an estate, holding or tenancy, or any question connected with, or arising out of, proceedings for partition, not
being a question as to title in any of the property of which partition is sought;
xxxx   xxxx   xxxx   xxxx   xxxxâ€
Thus, even the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against dismissal of her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the trial Court, the
learned Additional District Judge, has been dismissed, holding that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction, with the suit for partition itself not being
maintainable before that Court.
Learned counsel, on query, could not deny that the suit land is agricultural land and therefore the land that would fall within the purview of the
jurisdiction conferred by the aforesaid Act upon the State Government/Revenue -officers, in terms of sub-section 1 of Section 158 of the Act.
Hence, I see absolutely no reason to interfere in the aforesaid orders.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed in limine.
However, while dismissing this petition, it is to be clarified that no observation made by the learned courts below, or this Court, as regards the merits of
the case (including the observations of the trial Court), shall be taken into consideration by the competent revenue authority while deciding the case of
the petitioner for partition, on merits.
