Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 405 (HP)

SANTOKH SINGH v. SUKH DEV SINGH

2001-12-21

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER S.S. Negi, I.A.S. :- This revision petition under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act. has been preferred by Sh. Santokh Singh and 6 others against the order dated 19.4.1995 passed by the Divisonal Commissioner Kangra Division in appeal No. 120/94 whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shri Santokh Singh the present petitioner No.l presented an application dated 8.1.1992 to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Una requesting therein for separating of his share from the land jointly held by both the parties measuring 8 kanals 17 Marlas bearing khewat No. 125 Khatoni No.259 entered in Misal Hakiat Bandobast for the year 1987-88. situated in village Behdala. Tehsil and Distt. Una (H.P.). The learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade after hearing both the parties sanctioned the mode of partition vide order dated 21.8.1993. 3. Against this order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 21.8.1993. Sh. Sukh Dev and Smt. Manorma Devi present respondents filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector Una on the grounds that they had purchased the land measuring 0-03-98 Hect. (0-01-99 Hect. each) for the construction of residential houses in Up-Mohal Lalmain of Mohal Behdala from Smt. Kishore Devi and Ranjodh Singh, in the month of June. 1991 and they were put in possession of the land and they covered the area to the extent of their shares and started constructions without any objection from any shareholders. 4. It was also contended that the present petitioner purchased the land much after the respondents and while the respondents were in the process of raising the construction, no objection was raised by the predecessor of petitioners who sold their share to the parties. 5. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the case record accepted the appeal of the present respondents vide order dated 30.3.1994 and set-aside the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 21.8.1993 remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for deciding the mode of partition afresh by maintaining possession of the parties. 6. Aggrieved of this order of the Sub-Divisional Collector dated 30.3.1994. the present petitioner Sh. Santokh and others filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra on the grounds that the land abutting road should be partitioned as one block among all the shareholders ignoring possession. 7. 6. Aggrieved of this order of the Sub-Divisional Collector dated 30.3.1994. the present petitioner Sh. Santokh and others filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra on the grounds that the land abutting road should be partitioned as one block among all the shareholders ignoring possession. 7. The learned Divisional Commissioner after hearing both the parties and going through the case record held that neither the authority cited by the present petitioner laid down in Dasondhi Rams case is relevant in the present case nor the subsequent purchaser could prevent the present respondents from claiming benefit which legitimately belonged to them, and accordingly dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.4.1995. 8. It is against this order of the Divisional Commissioner Kangra. the present revision petition has been preferred before us. 9. The records were requisitioned and the parties were afforded opportunity to address their arguments in the court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the land in question is situated in a commercially buoyant place abutting PWD Road and has to be partitioned as one block to each shareholder according to the extent of shares to each shareholders. It was cannonaded that the relevant law cited on behalf of the petitioner was ignored in disregard of the authority laid down therein. It has therefore been prayed that the orders passed by the lower courts be set-aside and the partition of the land abutting road side be ordered to be carried out in equal shares. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent controverted the contention of the petitioners asserting that the petitioners came into picture much after the respondents who had started construction on the land purchased by them much earlier. It was accordingly prayed that the respondents were entitled to retain their possession in preference to the parties who acquired interest in the property at subsequent date. 12. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the position that emerges, is that the respondent No. I and 2 purchased the land in question on 1st June and 14th June 1991 whereas the petitioner Santokh Singh purchased a share from Sh. Ranjodh Singh and Kishore Dev on 14.11.1991. It has been brought on record that the respondents were in exclusive possession of the land after they purchased it and the started construction immediately in the month of June. 1991 itself. Ranjodh Singh and Kishore Dev on 14.11.1991. It has been brought on record that the respondents were in exclusive possession of the land after they purchased it and the started construction immediately in the month of June. 1991 itself. The Field Kanungo is reported to have recorded the statements of some persons in an enquiry in which it was stated that Sukh Dev and Manorma had started construction work in June. 1991. Therefore it is clear that the said Sukh Dev and Manorma had started construction work in June. 1991. Therefore it is clear that the said Sukh Dev and Manorma had invested a considerable amount in the land without any objection from the original landowners. Under these circumstances a subsequent purchaser could not and cannot maintain any claim that has the effect of dislodging the respondents from their possession in the name of the partition. The petitioners claim if any lies against the original owners and not against the present respondents who in our view, are entitled to maintain the possession that they acquired much before the present petitioners came on the scene. Therefore the orders of the Collector as affirmed by the learned Commissioner directing the Assistant Collector to earn out the partition by maintaining the existing possession of the parties, is perfectly in order and there is no justification to interfere therewith. 13. Consequently the revision petition being devoid of any merit, fails and is therefore dismissed. 14. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.