Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 339 (HP)

KASHMIR SINGH v. SHRI UDHO RAM

2006-11-06

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against an order dated 1.2.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 in case No. 240 of 2000. 2. Before facts of the case are that one Shri Udho Ram, respondent No.1 in the present revision petition, filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hamirpur for partition of land held measuring 111-8 Kanals held in joint ownership alongwith the other parties at Village Fafan, Tehsil Hamirpur. The application was rejected by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 7.6.1995 on the grounds that the land was recorded as Charand Tikadaran of Tikkas Saned and Tikker and some of the land owners have raised objections against its partition. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Shri Udho Ram filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Hamirpur who remanded the matter on 31.3.2000 to the Assistant Collector to decide it afresh with the observations that the land in dispute is no longer a grazing ground and majority of the co-shares thereof have consented for the partition and in view of the increasing population and need for productivity, the partition should be allowed. This order was assailed by the present petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act. The learned Deputy Commissioner held, that as per Sub-Section 2(b) of Section 124 of the Act, there is a bare for allowing partition of a grazing ground but the same confers a discretionary power upon the revenue Officer for allowing partition if it does not cause inconvenience to the co-shares. He observed that the land is in the ownership of the parties majority of whom have agreed to the partition. The persons raising objections are those who reside in the village where this land is situated and are availing all the rights of its cultivation, grass cutting etc. He further held that in case the partition is allowed, it will not adversely effect any of the land owners but will allow all the co-shares to use this land. He, therefore, upheld the order of the Collector on 0.2.2003 by dismissing the revision petition. 3. He further held that in case the partition is allowed, it will not adversely effect any of the land owners but will allow all the co-shares to use this land. He, therefore, upheld the order of the Collector on 0.2.2003 by dismissing the revision petition. 3. The petitioners have now filed the present revision petition before this court on the grounds that the grazing rights of the co sharers of all the three villagers are of civil nature and cannot be diminished. It has been averred that the view taken by the Collector is contrary to the entries of the revenue record. 4. The case was heard for admission on 31.10.2006 when the counsel for the petitioner emphasized that his case was based on single point that a grazing ground could not be partitioned under Section 124 of the H,P. Land Revenue Act. In view of this, all the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and the courts above were vitiated as the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade had partitioned the area that was classified as grazing ground. 5. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur exercising the powers of Commissioner dated 1.2.2003, which is the subject of this second revision petition, has been perused. It is clear from the same that the objection regarding grazing ground being subject to the partition has been thoroughly discussed in the order passed by the Commissioner. A bare reading of the provisions laid down in Sub-Section 1 & 2 of Section 1233 makes it clear that under Clause-(b) of Sub-Section 2 there is a bare on allowing partition of a grazing ground but this provision allows exercise of discretionary powers by the revenue authorities if allowing partition of such area does not cause inconvenience to any co-sharers. Although, the area in Quentin was recorded as Charand, but it was not shamlat land. It was private land owned by the private land owners and also the land owners were residing in three different revenue estates. The majority of the land owners were in favour of the partition. Since the land under partition is private land and the majority of the owners are desirous to use this area as per their requirement after partition, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was well within his powers to go ahead with the partition of the area classified as charand even though a few of the owners objected. Since the land under partition is private land and the majority of the owners are desirous to use this area as per their requirement after partition, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was well within his powers to go ahead with the partition of the area classified as charand even though a few of the owners objected. Moreover, it is seen that the spot inspection of the area has been carried out and much of the land has already been constructed upon or is no longer in the shape of grazing ground. This has further strengthened the case that the partition could have been effected regardless of the classification of the area being classified as grazing land or Charand. 6. In view of the above, I am of the view that the present revision petition has no merits. Moreover, this is a second revision petition that has been filed in the same matte and the same is not maintainable under the law. The revision petition is not admitted. Announced the open court today the 6.11.2006. Record of the court below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.