Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 414 (HP)

ACHHAR CHAND v. JAI LAL

2001-12-31

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS :- Achhar Chand S/O Sh. Desh Raj R/o Una. Up-Mohal Behli. Tehsil and Distt Una has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 28.3.2001 passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner Una exercising the powers of Commissioner, under the H.P. Land revenue Act whereby the application filed by the present petitioner for impleading Shri Vijay Kumar Vohra S/o Sh. Madan Singh Vohra r/o Rakkar colony. Una as necessary party in the revision petition was rejected. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Shri Jai Lal the present respondent No. 1 presented an application to the Assistant Collectors 1st Grade-Cum Tehsildar for separation of his Khata by way of partition of land comprised in Khewat No. 255. Khatauni No. 595. 596. Khasra Nos. 615 (222-00). 616 (333-50) measuring 555-50 Sq. meters as entered in Missal Haquiyat Bandobast Jadid for the year 1986-87. jointly held by both the parties situated in up-Mohal Behli. Mohal Una. Tehsil and Distt. Una (H.P.). 3. The learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade Una after commencement of partition proceedings framed mode of partition on 16.3.1996 and subsequently got the partition carried out on the spot after hearing objections of the parties and sanctioned instrument of partition vide order dated 6.6.1997. 4. Against this order Sh. Achhar Chand (present petitioner) filed an appeal before the Collector. Sub-Division Una on the grounds that he had already been in peaceful possession of his share since April 1982 and that the court below had no jurisdiction to partition the Abadi land and that the court below had also ignored the fact that about Civil suit pending between the parties in the civil court which had ordered to maintain the status-quo order on 16.2.1995. 5. The learned Sub-Divisional Collector Una after hearing both the parties and going through the record found that the Assistant Collector had carried out the partition with due consent of both the parties and in accordance with the mode of partition and accordingly dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.6.1998. 6. Aggrieved of this order, the present petitioner Sh. Achhar Chand preferred revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra on the grounds that the revenue courts below had not appreciated the order of civil court which had ordered to maintain the status-quo till the final disposal of suit and that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had partitioned the land measuring 564-97 Sq. Achhar Chand preferred revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra on the grounds that the revenue courts below had not appreciated the order of civil court which had ordered to maintain the status-quo till the final disposal of suit and that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had partitioned the land measuring 564-97 Sq. Mtrs. Instead of 555-50 Sq. Mtrs. 7. Pending adjudication of the case (revision petition) before the Additional Deputy Commissioner Una exercising the power of Commissioner under H.P. Land Revenue Act. Sh. Achhar Chand filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with section 151 CPC stating that the respondent No. 1 Sh. Jai Lal had transferred his share measuring 153.24 Sq. Mtrs. to one Sh. Vijay Kumar Vohra. hence prayed for impleading him as necessary party to the case. 8. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and going through the contents of the application and considering the reply filed by the respondent, rejected the application vide order dated 28.3.2001 holding that Sh. Vijay Kumar could not be made party to the case at revisional stage. 9. Dis-satisfied with this order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this court. 10. The matter has been heard and the records available on the case file have also been gone into. 11. The sole contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is that the lower court should have allowed respondent No. 4 Sh.Vijay Kumar as a party to the proceedings. The said Sh. Vijay Kumar is purported to have purchased a share from respondent No. 1 Jai Lal and according to petitioner, now has become a necessary party to the dispute as he is in possession of the land i.e. subject matter of the litigation in the present proceedings. It has been contended that non-impleadment of said Vijay Kumar in the present proceedings shall cause prejudice to the parties and result in multiplicity of litigation. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent controverted the submissions and averred that the said Vijay Kumar was rightly not allowed as party as he was not the landowner at the time when application for partition was filed by Shri Jai Lal respondent No. I. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent controverted the submissions and averred that the said Vijay Kumar was rightly not allowed as party as he was not the landowner at the time when application for partition was filed by Shri Jai Lal respondent No. I. 13. After thoughtful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the said Vijay Kumar was not a landowner at the time when application for partition of land was filed under section 123 of H.P. Land Revenue Act and said Sh. Vijay Kumar admittedly acquired ownership at a subsequent date. Section 123 of Land Revenue Act enjoins that any joint owner of land or any joint tenant of a tenancy on the date of application may apply for partition. The respondent No. 4 is a successor-in-interest of the part of the land with original owner Sh. Jai Lal respondent No. 1 and therefore would be bound by the order in the partition proceedings. Therefore non-impleadment of respondent No. 4 as a party to the present proceedings would not affect the merits of the ease in any manner. Secondly, the petitioner has not shown any cause, much result of non-impleadment of Vijay Kumar as a party to the said proceedings. It appears that the petitioner in order to procrastinate the proceedings has come up with this plea or else the said Vijay Kumar himself would have approached the revenue authorities to associate him with the partition proceedings in case he had any grievance. Parties to a proceeding cannot claim a right to a third party consequently the revision petition is without any merit and is therefore dismissed. 14. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.