LEKH RAM v. GOPAL — 1983 DIGILAW 60 (HP)

ORDER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Lekh Ram and others under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 23-5-1970 of the Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, who rejected the revision petition filed before him and upheld the order dated 16-7-1968 of the Collector, Mahasu. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that an application was made by Shri Kapuru on 31-8-1964, for the partition of land situated in village Okharu, comprising Khata No. 3/4, Kitat 38, measuring 25-18 bighas, before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade (Tehsildar, Kasumpti) . The opposite party, Lekh Ram and others, petitioners in the instant revision, opposed the partition application on the ground that in view of a private partition which had already taken place between them, the question of title was involved. Consequently, the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade (Tehsildar, Kasumpti) referred the partition application to the Revenue Assistant for deciding the question of title. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (Revenue Assistant) vide his order dated 8-9-1965 rejected the application for partition holding that the question of title was involved and the parties should approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for a decision regarding the title before knocking at the door of the Revenue Officer for partition. Aggrieved by this order, Shri Kapuru, respondent in the instant revision petition, filed an appeal before the Collector of the erstwhile Mahasu District, who vide his order dated 18-4-1966 reminded the case back to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade for reconsideration of the evidence and disposal of the partition application accordingly. After the case was remanded, the Revenue Assistant (Assistant Collector, 1st Grade) considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the question of title was not involved and accordingly, he directed the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, to proceed with the partition proceedings. 3. Aggrieved by this order dated 30-12-1967 of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Mahasu, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Collector, Mahasu. The learned Collector vide his order dated 16-7-1968 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the private partition, if any, had not been given effect to in the revenue record and the exclusive possession of the land, in question, by the petitioners, had not been established on the basis of the entries in the revenue record. This order of the Collector, was challenged in revision before the Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. This order of the Collector, was challenged in revision before the Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. He too, came to the conclusion that no question of title was involved and the revision was not competent in view of the fact that the two revenue courts below had given concurrent findings on the question of title. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the court record. It has been pointed out that respondent Shri Kapuru who filed the application for partition of the land in mauza Okharu has since passed away and his legal heirs have been substituted in his place. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that in view of the private partition between the parties, the partition proceedings were not competent. According to him, the entire land situated in Mauza Okharu had fallen to the share of the petitioners whereas the land situated in village Jania had gone to the respondent on the basis of the private partition. He cited case law as reported in PLJ-1971 page 397, Des Raj v. Om Parkash in support of this contention. He further argued that in view of the private partition, the question of title had arisen and could be decided only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. 5. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, stated that the petitioners were raising the question of title only to delay the disposal of the case and were causing avoidable harassment to the respondents by prolonged litigation. He pointed out that these two parties jointly owned land measuring 64-13 bighas and 25-17 bighas in Mauza Jania and Okharu respectively. He added that initially, there were three owners : Shri Kapuru, Shri Dharam Dass and Smt. Parvati, who owned the land mentioned above in equal share. Later on, Parvati gave her land situated in village Jania to the petitioners and in Okharu to the respondent. Consequently, the petitioners and the respondents were the only two owners having equal share in the land at both the places. According to the counsel for the respondents the petitioner, Lekh Ram applied for the partition of the land situated in village Jania and his application was allowed. Later, on 31-8-1964, when Kapuru applied for partition of the land in Okharu, the petitioners raised the question of title and opposed the partition. According to the counsel for the respondents the petitioner, Lekh Ram applied for the partition of the land situated in village Jania and his application was allowed. Later, on 31-8-1964, when Kapuru applied for partition of the land in Okharu, the petitioners raised the question of title and opposed the partition. The result was protracted and long drawn out litigation culminating in the instant revision. The learned counsel for the respondents added that since no appeal had been filed against the order dated 18-4-1966 of the Collector, Mahasu, his order wherein he had held that the learned Assistant Collector could not refuse partition on the basis of oral evidence and he remanded the case for reconsideration of the evidence, had become final. The counsel also mentioned that the Assistant Collector had come to the conclusion that no question of title was involved and when an appeal was filed before the Collector by the petitioners, the Collector upheld the findings of the Assistant Collector. He argued that the revision petition filed before the Commissioner was not maintainable in view of the concurrent findings of the Collector and the Assistant Collector that no question of title was involved. In support of his argument, he cited LLT-1957 page 20. He also contended that since the supposed private partition between the parties, had not been registered, it could not have been adduced in evidence. He referred to section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 stating that the instrument of partition of immovable property was required to be registered and as in this case, it had not been registered, it was inadmissible in evidence. He also stated that the compromise claimed to have been reached between the parties by the petitioners was a one sided affair and was not valid as it did not have the permission of the court. As there were minors also amongst the parties to the proceedings, the compromise could be effected only with the permission of the court especially when the proceedings were pending. 6. The perusal of the court record reveals that the land in Okharu and Jania was owned jointly by the parties and on the application of Lekh Ram, the land situated in village Jania was partitioned and was given effect to. 6. The perusal of the court record reveals that the land in Okharu and Jania was owned jointly by the parties and on the application of Lekh Ram, the land situated in village Jania was partitioned and was given effect to. But later on, when the respondent, Kapuru made an application for partition of the land situated in village Okharu, the petitioners opposed it and raised the question of title. There is no doubt that the lower courts, where the partition proceedings were contested, have given concurrent findings that the question of title was not involved and the private partition had also not been given effect to. These findings are based on the revenue records, which still indicate that the land situated in mauza Okharu is jointly owned by the two parties. It has also been brought out in evidence that the deed of private partition had not been registered and on that basis it was held by the Collector, Mahasu that it was, therefore, not admissible in evidence. It appears from the evidence that the Collector, Mahasu was justified in holding that the private partition had not been given effect to and exclusive possession of the petitioners of the land in village Okharu was not established. Similar finding was given by the learned Commissioner in his order dated 23-5-1970 while dismissing the revision petition. There is, thus, lot of substance and force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the private partition between the parties had not been given effect to and the land in question was jointly owned and possessed by them. His contentions find support from the orders of the Collector as well as the Commissioner. As the orders containing the findings discussed above are well considered and based on available evidence, the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners are devoid of substance and, therefore, cant be accepted. In view of the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector there is no need for going into the relevance of the rulings cited by the learned counsels. Suffice it to conclude here that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts are based on correct appreciation of facts of the case and do not call for any interference. In view of the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector there is no need for going into the relevance of the rulings cited by the learned counsels. Suffice it to conclude here that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts are based on correct appreciation of facts of the case and do not call for any interference. Keeping in view the concurrent findings of the lower courts, there is no doubt that no question of title is involved and, therefore, there is no scope for invoking the revisional powers vested with this court and interferring with the orders of the lower courts. 7. As the litigation between the parties had been long drawn out in the lower courts it was imperetive that a line should have been drawn and before admitting the instant revision petition, its admissibility in view of the concurrent findings had been gone into, at the initial stages, and the curtain had been wrung down on this case. Apart from the fact that a revision petition should not ordinarily be entertained in cases where there are concurrent findings of subordinate courts unless there has been a material irregularity or miscarriage of justice, it should also be ensured that litigation does not become an instrument of harassment to either of the parties. In the instant case, there is no doubt that avoidable harassment has been caused to the respondents due to delay in the disposal of the revision petition. In feet, the original respondent is reported to have since died and it is only after a lapse of about 13 years that the fate of the instant revision petition has been decided, Even though the outcome is in favour of the respondent, the injury or loss caused to him cant be compensated. It is against this back ground that a direction to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Shimla to dispose of the partition application within a specified time-frame is relevant. The need for disposal of revenue cases within a stipulated time-limit is inescapable and the Revenue Officers are advised to bear in mind the implications of unnecessary and avoidable delay. They should constantly remind themselves, that there is a time frame within which cases should be disposed of and any attempt on the part of the litigents to delay the disposal must be firmly resisted. 8. They should constantly remind themselves, that there is a time frame within which cases should be disposed of and any attempt on the part of the litigents to delay the disposal must be firmly resisted. 8. Apart from the concurrent findings of the lower courts even, otherwise, on the merits of the case itself, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed and the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (Tehsildar Shimla) is directed to dispose of the application for partition within a period of six months in accordance with the law. The parties are directed to appear before him on 30th November, 1983. Revision petition dismissed.