Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 416 (HP)

CHET RAM v. DARSHNOO DEVI

2001-12-31

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS :- This revision petition has come up for hearing on the recommendations of the Commissioner Shimla Division dated 25.5.1998 whereby the learned Commissioner has recommended that the case be remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla (Rural) for affording an opportunity to the present petitioner to raise his objections against the partition. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Smt. Darshnoo Devi the present respondent No. 1 presented an application to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla (Rural) for partition of joint property comprised in Khata No. 19 Khatoni No. 44. 45 and 46 kita 69 measuring 117 bighas and another khata No. 21 Khatoni No. 48. Khasra No. 978 measuring 1-1 Bigha situated in Mauza Parhech. Tehsil and Distt. Shimla as per her share as recorded in the revenue record. 3. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Shimla (Rural) after hearing both the parties sanctioned mode of partition vide order dated 16.12.1996. 4. Against this order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla. Shri Chet Ram the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector Shicula (,Rular)on the ground that Smt.Darshnu Devi present respondent No. 1 had no right to seek partition of the property for the reason that she was not the owner thereof and that the land measuring 94 bighas out of the property in question was in exclusive ownership and possession of the present petitioner and Shri Lachmi Ram Respondent No. 2. It was contended that as per settlement between the present petitioner and Shri Daulat Ram husband of Smt. Darshnu Devi in 1955 that took place in the presence of Shri Tilaf Ram. Hari Nand. Anant Ram and Ramji Dass. the husband of present respondent No. 1 Daulat Ram has been settled on another property measuring about 80 Bighas. therefore Smt. Darshanu Devi, the present respondent had no right in the land in dispute. He also contended that he being an old man of about 82 years, illiterate person and hard of hearing. She misrepresented the facts and procured his signatures on the statement dated 15.11.1996. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and perusal of record, rejected the appeal vide order dated 31.12.1997. 5. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Sub-Divisional Collector dated 31.12.1997. Shri Chet Ram present petitioner filed revision petition before the Commissioner. She misrepresented the facts and procured his signatures on the statement dated 15.11.1996. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and perusal of record, rejected the appeal vide order dated 31.12.1997. 5. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Sub-Divisional Collector dated 31.12.1997. Shri Chet Ram present petitioner filed revision petition before the Commissioner. Shimla Division who after hearing both the parties and having gone through the record has recommended that the matter needs to be remitted to the Assistant Collector. 1st Grade for providing an opportunity to the petitioner for pleading his objections to the partition. 6. The parties were called upon to address their claims in support or against the recommendations. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the recommendations made by the learned-Commissioner be accepted whereas the learned counsel for respondents controverted the recommendations and asserted that the private partition has not been proved and petitioner himself agreed to the partition before the Assistant Collector. 8. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of both the sides and perusal of records, it is revealed that the petitioner himself agreed to the partition of the land jointly held by the parties before the Assistant Collector on 15.11.1996 in a statement signed by the petitioner. His contention that the statement has been procured by f fraud does not inspire confidence, as the statement has been made before the Assistant Collector who had read over the same to the petitioner. Some other co-sharers have also deposed before the Assistant Collector on 15.11.1996 and 15.12.1996 that the land jointly recorded in the revenue record by partitioned. Therefore it cannot be said that the statement of the petitioner was procured by fraud and misrepresentation. 9. The second contention of the petitioner that the land in dispute has been partitioned by a private partition in 1955 is not borne out by record as the land has been shown joint in the revenue record. Private partition in order to be valid has either to be incorporated in the revenue record or should at least be agreeable to the share-holders. Here is a case which satisfies none of the requisites, but to the contrary, majority share-holders, except the petitioner, intend and agree for separation of their shares in the joint holdings. Therefore the plea of private petitioner cannot be maintained. Here is a case which satisfies none of the requisites, but to the contrary, majority share-holders, except the petitioner, intend and agree for separation of their shares in the joint holdings. Therefore the plea of private petitioner cannot be maintained. Consequently the revision petition is without any force and therefore the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner for providing opportunity to the petitioner to oppose partition are turned down and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector are affirmed. 10. Smt. Darshanu Devi (since deceased) had also filed a revision petition registered as Revision Petition No. 216/98 in this court against the order/recommendations of the learned Commissioner. Shimla Division dated 25.5.1998 impugned in these proceedings. Since the recommendations have been turned down by this order, therefore the revision petition stand accepted. Copy of the order be placed on case file revision petition No. 216/98.11. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. -