Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 176 (HP)

SHAKUNTALA DEVI v. KARAN SINGH

2006-06-20

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER: This revision petition has arisen form a recommendation made by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who, while adjudicating upon revision petition No. 349/2003 filed by the petitioners against order dated 11.11.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Dehra, has held while sanctioning partition, the Assistant Collector has created three Khatas while as per the mode of partition, only two Khatas were proposed to be created. The Ld. Commissioner has also observed that new path has been erected while there was no provision for the same in the mode of partition. He has further observed that though Smt. Shankuntala Devi, the petitioner No.1 had filed an application before the assistant Collector that Khasra No. 1218 is vacant on spot and this area had wrongly not been partitioned, the Assistant Collector has just filed the application without assigning any reasons for the same. The Ld. Commissioner has held that these aspects have been ignored by the Collector in appeal also. He has therefore recommended that both the orders of the courts below are not sustainable and should be set aside and the matter should be sent back to he Assistant Collector for de aovo proceedings as per the mode of partition 2. In the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner Smt. Shankuntala Devi stressed that the mode of partition had been clearly violated by the A.C. 1st Grade while carrying out the partition. As per the mode of partition only 2 khatas were to be separated while in the course of implementation of the partition 3 khatas were made out. Besides, a new path was created only to benefit Shri Karan Singh, the present respondent. Also, Khasra No. 1228 was kept joint although Smt. Shankuntala had filed an application that the same should be included in the partition proceedings. He cited "Diwan Singh etc. versus Bur Singh, 1982 PLJ, Page 493" to support his contention that partition should be carried out blockwise, abadi land should be divided equally and minimum numbers of blocks should be created. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent argument that Khasra No. 1229 which was abadi had been kept in the common khata in accordance the statement of the parties recorded on 24.1.1997. Besides, the Assistant commissioner had been appointed as local Commissioner to inspect the site. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent argument that Khasra No. 1229 which was abadi had been kept in the common khata in accordance the statement of the parties recorded on 24.1.1997. Besides, the Assistant commissioner had been appointed as local Commissioner to inspect the site. He had visited the spot in 2003 and found that the path given to the respondents house located in Khasra No. 1213 was required to ensure access for the house owner. He requested that the partition proceedings should not be re-opened as this would only result in further litigation. 4. Having perused the record of the case, I am satisfied that the plea taken by the present petitioner in the case is a mere technicality. Although, it is true that the instrument of partition differed from the mode of partition settled on 23.3.2002 after agreement of the parties and that Khasra No. 1228 was kept in the joint possession of the parties and the 3rd khata was therefore erected it is clear from the record that this was done in accordance with the statement of the parties. Also, the path to the house located in Khasra No. 1213 has been given on the basis of spot inspection with a view to ensuring access to the owner Shri Karan Singh. No fruitful purpose will be served in accepting the recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 8.3.2004 that the partition proceedings are required to be re-opened since the mode of partition agreed on 4.1.1999 has been violated. The partition appears to have been settled in a fair manner in the interest of all the parties and the prolonged litigation should be brought to an end. The recommendation of the learned Commissioner dated 18.3.2004, is not accepted. 65Revision Petition No. 30/2004 titled as Shri Karan Singh versus Smt. Shankuntala Devi & others filed against the recommendation is also accepted and disposed of by this single order. 6. Announced in the open court today the 20th June, 2006. Record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record from after due completion.