Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 348 (HP)

KISHORI LAL v. KANSHI RAM

2005-09-16

A.R.BASU

body2005
ORDER. This order shall dispose of the two above titled revision petitions for the reason the revision petition No. 184/98 is a recommendation made by the learned Commissioner, Kangra Division No. 19.3.1998 while revision petition No. 234/98 has been filed by the petitioner seeking in addition to that recommended by toe learned Commissioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petition applied to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Degra for partition of land comprised in Khata No. 66, Khatauni No. 118 to 121, Kitas 41, measuring 5-57-55 Hect. Situated in Mohal Sakrailu, Mauza Bohan, Tehsil Dehra, Distt. Kangra. A mode of partition prepared by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was objected to the present respondent No,3 to 5 who sought to be impleaded as parties to the application. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, rejected the application for partition while allowing the petitioner to file a fresh application. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Dehra, who rejected the same on 19.3.1985. As amended application was then filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 4.4.1985. A mode of partition was sanctioned on-4.4.1986." The respondents assailed this order in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector Dehra who ordered certain amendments to be made in the mode of partition vide his order dated 7.7.1987. The mode of partition was accordingly amended and the partition was sanctioned on 4.6.1987. The present petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Dehra who dismissed the same on 30.9.1996. A revision petition was field before the Commissioner Kangra on the ground that the application for partition was got inquired into by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade who was biased against the petitioner and despite an application filed by the petitioner for withdrawing the inquiry from the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, the same was not considered. It was further alleged that land comprised in Khasra No.412 which is in possession of the respondent No.1 has been allotted to the petitioner while the land in khasra No. 698/1 which is in possession; of the petitioner has been allotted to the respondent. Likewise, khasra No. 698/1 and 713/1 required for further extension of Abadi of the petitioner has been wrongly allotted to the respondents. It was further alleged that a path was required to be provided on the boundary between khasra no. Likewise, khasra No. 698/1 and 713/1 required for further extension of Abadi of the petitioner has been wrongly allotted to the respondents. It was further alleged that a path was required to be provided on the boundary between khasra no. 713 and 714 as per the mode of partition but the same has not been done and no approach to his well has been provided. All the objections raised by the petitioner except to that pertaining to providing of a path 3 Mtrs. vide on the boundary of Khasra No. 713 and 714 were rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 19.3.1998, and it has been recommended that the path which has not been provided on the boundary of khasra No. 713 and 714 may be ordered to be provided. The recommendation has been registered as revision petition No. 184/98. The petitioner has filed the revision petition No. 234 seeking redressal of the other grievances which were raised before the Commissioner but were rejected. 3. The record of the courts below has been perused minutely and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 2 through their attorney were heard. The respondents No.3 to 5 were proceeded exparte during the proceeding before this Court. 4. Shri Onkar Jareth, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition No. 234/98. He argued that despite the fact that the petitioner has sought the inquiry on the application for partition to be withdrawn from the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, the same was not considered by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and hence the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, proceeded in a biased manner against the petitioner while making a report on the application. He climed that the Khasra No. 698/1; 713/1 and 714/3 are in possession of the petitioner and should have been allotted accordingly, while khasra No. 412 which is in possession of the respondent should have been allotted to him. According to the learned counsel, the principle of consolidation of land has also been ignored by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade. 5. Shri Purshottam Ram, SPC for respondent No.1 and Shri Bansi Lai, GPA of respondent No.2 submitted that the matter may be decided as per recommendation made by the learned Commissioner. 6. According to the learned counsel, the principle of consolidation of land has also been ignored by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade. 5. Shri Purshottam Ram, SPC for respondent No.1 and Shri Bansi Lai, GPA of respondent No.2 submitted that the matter may be decided as per recommendation made by the learned Commissioner. 6. Having perused the record as well as the grounds of revision and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for, the petitioner and the submissions made by the Attorney respondents No.1 and 2, I have arrived at the conclusion that all the grounds taken in the revision petition No. 234/98 and argued before me by the learned counsel for petitioner had also been taken before the learned Collector as well the learned Commissioner who have duly considered these and passed orders by way of well reasoned findings. The learned counsel for petitioner has specifically objected against the inquiry being held by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade against whom an application for withdrawal of the inquiry was preferred by the petitioner. However, the learned Commissioner has rightly concluded that the application was filed on or after 18.9.1984 while the Assistant Collector IInd Grade had already completed his inquiry on 7.9.1984. Even otherwise, the matter was re-inquired by a different incumbent on 16.4.1990. An aspiration can not be cast on a particular institution simply because the petitioner deals that an officer who was earlier holding the post of Assistant Collector IInd Grade was biased against him and so could be the subsequent incumbent. All causes including providing of path on the boundary of khasra No. 713 and 714 have been duly considered and adjudicated upon. Except for the issue regarding presiding of a path on the boundary of khasra Nos. 713 and 714 which had to be done in accordance of the mode of partition, there appears no other illegality or irregularity in the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The learned Collector as well the learned Commissioner have considered all the issues at length and have arrived at concurrent findings of fact vide their orders dated 30.9.1996 and 19.3.1998 respectively. These concurrent findings of fact are based on reasoning and can not be termed as perverse. No such allegation of infirmities in these orders are visible. The learned Collector as well the learned Commissioner have considered all the issues at length and have arrived at concurrent findings of fact vide their orders dated 30.9.1996 and 19.3.1998 respectively. These concurrent findings of fact are based on reasoning and can not be termed as perverse. No such allegation of infirmities in these orders are visible. Hence the revision petition No. 234/98 filed by the petitioner is rejected and the recommendation made by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 19.3.1998 are accepted. Consequently, the revision petition No. 184 is accepted. 7. Announced in the open court today on the 16th September, 2005. 8. The record of the court below be returned and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. 9. Revision petition No. 234/98 is rejected & recommendation of Commissioner as well as revision petition No. 184/98 is accepted.