Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 312 (HP)

PIARA SINGH v. TARLOK SINGH

2006-10-10

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER: 1. This revision petition has been filed u/s 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, against the order dated 10-9-1997 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, Dharamsala. 2. Brief facts of the case are that two applications dated 15-12-1992 were filed for partition of land by Shri Amar Singh and Shri Ram Rattan, present respondents before the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Una in respect of land measuring -0-53-62 Ha, bearing Khewat No. 395, Khatauni No 642, 643, 644 khasra Nos. 2232, 2025, 2222, 2231, 2040 kitas 5 as per Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jaddi Sani and land measuring 0-06-15 Ha, bearing Khewat No. 394 Khatauni No. 639, 640, 641 khasra No. 2234, 2221, 2223, 2224 situated in village/ Up Mohal Kasba, Mohal Bassal, Tehsil and District Una as per copy of Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jaddi Sani for the year 1987-88 which were claimed to be two separate joint holdings. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade after enquiring into the matter, sanctioned the mode of partition vide his order dated 19-9-1994 and the cases were sent to the field Revenue Officials for partitioning the land on the spot. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade sanctioned the final partition on 04-09-1995 and instrument of partition was also finalized accordingly. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Una who dismissed the same vide his order dated 13-11-1995. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on the grounds that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Una had not effected the partition in accordance with the mode of partition. The Id. Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 10-9-1997 rejected the revision petition and hence the present revision petition has been filed before this court. 3. The record of the case has been seen and counsel for the parties heard. Counsel for the petitioners mainly stressed that Khasra No. 2232 had been allotted to the respondents while this was the land abutting the road and being a valuable piece of land should have been apportioned amongst the applicants for the partition in a fair manner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention to the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 10.9.1997 and para 7 of the same. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention to the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 10.9.1997 and para 7 of the same. He argued that this para showed that the mode of partition was sanctioned on 19-9-1994 on the basis of the statements of parties and had become final as no appeal or revision had been filed against it. Partition was effected on the spot by the Field Kanungo and patwari. On 31.5.1995 at the time of partition in the field, Shri Amar Singh and Shri Pyara Singh objected to partition before the Field Kanungo in one partition case only. However, the Field Kanungo giving detailed reasons in his report rejected the objections regarding consolidation and allotment on the roadside. On receipt of partition papers from the field revenue staff, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 20.7.1995 fixed the next date as 2.9.1995 for hearing objections to the partition proposals and since this date was declared as holiday, the case was taken up for 4.9.1995. On that date Shri Pyara Singh along with the counsel representing Shri Pyara Singh, Kewal Singh, Smt. Ram Piari and Smt. Harbansi were present and the statements of the parties were recorded by the Assistant Collector. At that time Shri Pyara Singh stated that there was no objection to the partition and the counsel representing Shri Pyara Singh and others also did not object. On this basis the first appeal was rejected by the learned Collector and the revision petition was rejected by the learned Divisional Commissioner. Moreover, it is clear from the record that the petitioners had also been given land on the side of the road. Therefore, the single point of objection to the partition proceedings regarding no land having been given from the area abutting road has been dealt with by the Divisional Commissioner. 5. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioners stated that there was no statement of 4th September, 1995 made by Shri Pyara Singh and the parties had not accepted the partition. In fact the record shows that on 4.9.1995, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade has recorded in his zimni order that respondent No.4 (Shri Piara Singh in this case) with counsel for respondent No.1 to 4 were present. They gave the statement that they were satisfied with the partitions effected and had no objection to the same. In fact the record shows that on 4.9.1995, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade has recorded in his zimni order that respondent No.4 (Shri Piara Singh in this case) with counsel for respondent No.1 to 4 were present. They gave the statement that they were satisfied with the partitions effected and had no objection to the same. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade then accepted the partition as per Naksha . There are also recorded statements on the file before the Field Kanungo and the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade signed by Shri Piara Singh, that he has seen the boundaries of the area allotted in partition and is in agreement with the same. 6. A detailed order in the matter has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 10.9.1997 in the two revision petitions regarding this matter. No point of law has been raised by the petitioners in this case. The final partition stands sanctioned and instrument of partition has also been finalized. At this stage the second revision petition is not maintainable and the same is rejected. Announced in the open court today the 10.10.2006. Record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.