Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 418 (HP)

Jeet Kumar v. Sadhu Ram

2008-08-21

P.MITRA

body2008
JUDGMENT This matter arises from the recommendation made by the Commissioner, Kangra Division, in revision no. 130/ 99 decided on 29.1.2000. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent before the Commissioner Sh. Sadhu Ram (deceased) had applied for partition of land measuring 1-91-35 hectares in mohal/mauja Badukhar, Tehsil Indora of Kangra district. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Tehsil Indora had sanctioned the mode of partition on 18.2.1997 while the partition was finally sanctioned on 4.11.1997. The appellants (before the Commissioner) had then preferred an appeal before the Collector, Nurpur sub division, who dismissed the same vide orders dated 3.3.1999. Thereupon on a revision petition filed by appellants, the Commissioner has recommended that the matter be remanded to the Collector to decide the appeal afresh. The Commissioner has made this recommendation as he found that the collector did not have an iota of knowledge as to how Court proceedings should be conducted and that there was incoherence in the interim orders. The Commissioner also felt that the orders of the Collector cannot be sustained as the same were non-speaking orders. 3. The records of the case had been requisitioned and learned counsel for both the parties had been heard. The deceased respondent stood substituted by LRs. Learned counsel for, the appellants explained that the possession of the parties was to be kept intact as per mode of partition sanctioned. Khasra no. 1776, which was on the road side and measured" 00-5-85 hectares should have been given to the revisionists as per their share. As per learned counsel, this khasra no. has considerable commercial value and in the jamabandi, the possession has been shown as 'kasht kabja swayam; which shows that it was in joint possession of the parties. Learned counsel stated that a copy d the mamabandi, to which presumption of truth is attached, is available in the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further stated that the order of the Sub Divisional Collector is very strange and defective as pointed out the learned Commissioner. There is nothing in the case file to show that the parties were heard. Learned counsel cited the decision of one of my predecessors Sh. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further stated that the order of the Sub Divisional Collector is very strange and defective as pointed out the learned Commissioner. There is nothing in the case file to show that the parties were heard. Learned counsel cited the decision of one of my predecessors Sh. S.S. Sidhu in Dasaundhi Ram vs. Ramesh Singh & Others [1993 PLJ p. 107] to emphasise that land which abuts on roadside is valuable and should be partitioned as one block as per entitlement of the parties. He also cited the decision of Financial Commissioner, Punjab in case Gurmukh Singh & Others vs. Paramajit Singh & Others [2006 (1) PLJ. p. 288] on similar lines. Learned counsel prayed that the recommendation of the Commissioner be accepted. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the mode of partition had been decided which was not challenged by the applicants the mode of partition prescribed that the possession of the parties be kept intact. Further in the final orders, the Assistant Collector has mentioned that the respondents 1-3 were present when the proposed partition was read out and explained to them. Learned counsel stated that thereafter even demarcation had been given thereafter and khataunies were even made. 6. Learned counsel also stated that the appellants did not come up with objections at the appropriate stage. The appellants became owner much later through purchase. The khasra no. 1776 was in the possession of Sh. Sadhu Ram respondent from much earlier times. Learned counsel stated that the partition had been carried out properly as, per mode of partition framed which had not been challenged by anybody. The appeal to the Commissioner was only to delay and linger on the matter. The recommendation 'of the Commissioner should be declined. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellants stated that khasra no. 1766 was not in the exclusive possession of any of the co-owners. Had it been so, the jamabandies would have recorded it. Learned counsel further alleged the mode of partition had not been adhered to. He again emphasized that the recommendation of the Commissioner may be accepted. 8. I have considered the material available on the record. In particular, it is found that while making his the commendation, the Commissioner has found the Collector, Nurpur sub division's order to be very cryptic and a non-speaking order. He again emphasized that the recommendation of the Commissioner may be accepted. 8. I have considered the material available on the record. In particular, it is found that while making his the commendation, the Commissioner has found the Collector, Nurpur sub division's order to be very cryptic and a non-speaking order. The Commissioner has found that the Collector has neither discussed the grounds of appeal nor the arguments put forth by the counsel of the parties. The Commissioner has also quoted from the order sheets of the case file of the Collector and pointed out the various flaws and shortcomings therein. 9. The case file of the Collector was therefore perused and it is found that the findings of the Commissioner qua the same are very much correct. The Collector this staff below obviously did not know how case files are to be maintained and how interim orders are to be recorded. Further as found by the Commissioner, the' Collector's order is non-speaking, which cannot be accepted. In view of this, the recommendations of the Commissioner are accepted and the matter is remanded to the Collector, Nurpur sub division to decide the appeal afresh. 10. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Ratni Devi v. State of H.P. thru Collector 73 parties. The file of the court may be consigned to record after completion.