Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 339 (HP)

GABER SINGH v. PADAMU

2005-09-13

body2005
ORDER: This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, against the order of the A.D.C. Mandi exercising the powers of Commissioner passed on 22.12.2001 in revision petition No. 41/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Smt. Padamu wife of Sh. Shiv Ram resident of Village Kandhi, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi, filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Karsog for partition of land held by him jointly with the petitioner and other respondents. During these proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade the present respondents No.2 to 8 were proceeded against exparte and the mode of partition was framed on 27.9.1996. The present petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the Sub-Divisional Collector Karsog, raising a question of title but the learned Collector held Smt. Padamu as a co-sharer and rejected the appeal on 17.3.1996. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the A.D.C. Mandi exercising the powers of Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide an order dated 22.12.2001 against which the petitioner has now filed the present revision petition. 3. During the pendency of this revision petition the respondents No.2 to 8 did not appear despite service upon them and they have been proceeded an exparte. 4. The record of the courts below was called for and examined and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties were heard. 5. Sh. Mohinder Verma the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the land in dispute stands already partitioned between the forefathers of the petitioners and other share holders and all the share holders are since then in possession of their respective shares. The learned Counsel further argued that the respondent No.1 is not in possession over any portion of the land in dispute since the petitioner had evicted her from there more then 20 years ago. The learned counsel contended that there is a clear cut question of title involved in the present case which has been completely ignored by all the courts below. He cited the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Leetno versus Chamelo and others. (2001 (2) SLJ-1802) and argued that the moment question of title is raised, the Civil Court gets the jurisdiction to try it. He cited the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Leetno versus Chamelo and others. (2001 (2) SLJ-1802) and argued that the moment question of title is raised, the Civil Court gets the jurisdiction to try it. He contended that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade should have converted himself into a Civil Court and decided the question of title before proceeding with the application for partition. 6. Sh. Adarsh Sharma the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that Smt. Padamu, being a recorded a co-owner in the record of rights was entitled to get the same partitioned. According to the learned counsel, the courts below had rightly appreciated this legal position and rejected the claim of the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusing the record, I have observed that in the statement dated 10.4.1996 before the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the petitioner had claimed that he is in possession , over the land in dispute for the past 20 years. He has at the same time also acknowledged that the respondent No.1 has become an owner over the same by way of succession. It is further observed that the petitioner has no where established, in a credible manner, that a question of title is, involved in this matter. A mere raising of the question of title does is not necessitate that the Revenue Officer should accept the plea of the party and convert himself into a Civil Court to adjudicate upon the claim of the party. The party raising the question of title has to satisfy the Revenue Officer with credible and convincing logic supported by facts that a question of title, is in fact, actually involved. In the present case the petitioner has not been able to convince that the entries of the revenue records which clearly show the respondent No.1 as a co-sharer are wrong in any manner. Since it is an established point of law that the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not in possession over the land in dispute is also not sustainable. In view of this the ruling cited is not applicable in the instant case. 8. In view of the reasons discussed hereinabove, the revision petition, being devoid of merits is dismissed. 9. In view of this the ruling cited is not applicable in the instant case. 8. In view of the reasons discussed hereinabove, the revision petition, being devoid of merits is dismissed. 9. Announced in the open court today on 13.9.2005. 10. The record of the courts below be returned. This case file be consigned to the record room after due completion.