Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 47 (HP)

Hari Chand v. Santosh Devi & Connected Matter

2017-01-11

NARINDER CHAUHAN

body2017
ORDER Narinder Chauhan, I.A.S. Financial Commissioner (Appeals). —These revision petitions under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against the orders dated 7.2.2001, passed by the Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala in appeal No.12/2000 and 11/2000, whereby the Ld. Commissioner has accepted the appeals of present respondents by setting aside the orders dated 26.2.1996, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Collector), Una, in case 7/96 and 6/96 respectively. 2. The brief facts of the revision petitions are that the present respondent (which includes their predecessors also), filed two separate applications both dated 5.4.1984 before the AC 1st Grade, Amb, District Una, seeking partition of land comprised in Khewat No.772, Khatauni No. 1062, kita 8, area measuring 75-16 kanals, and Khewat No.359 khatauni No.534, kita 7, area measuring 56-1 kanals, as per jamabandi for the year 1980-81, situated in Village Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una. After processing the applications, the A.C. 1st Grade, devised the mode of partition on 16.6.1986. The present petitioner challenged these order before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amb, on the grounds that he had raised the issue of question of title and had pointed out that a civil suit in this respect is pending between the parties and as such, the Revenue Court cannot proceed to partition the land until the question of title is decided. The Id Collector, vide orders dated 31.10.1986, passed in Case Nos. 228/86 and 229/86. accepted both the appeals and remanded the matters to the A.C. Ist Grade, with the directions to decide the question of title in the first stage. On remand, the A.C. Ist Grade vide order dated 30.10.1987, ordered to file both the partition applications observing that the issue of question of title is pending adjudication in the Civil Court and it would take considerable time and as such, it would not be appropriate to keep the case in abeyance for an indefinite period of time. Shri Karan Singh (predecessor-in-interest of present respondents No. 1 to 3) and Shri Shiv Dev Singh (predecessor-in-interest of present respondents No. 4 and 5), challenged these orders before the Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, who vide orders dated 27.4.1998, rejected both the appeals No. 2/88/SO and 1/88/SO, by upholding the above orders o* the A.C.Ist Grade, Amb. 3. Against the orders of the Id. Settlement Collector, the present respondents filed two revision petitions no. 3. Against the orders of the Id. Settlement Collector, the present respondents filed two revision petitions no. 58/91 and 57/91, before Ld. Commissioner, Kangra Division, and the same were dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the petitioners that the Civil Suit has been decided in favour of the petitioners. However the Id. Commissioner, vide order dated 17.8.1993 directed the lower court to complete the partition proceedings within six month from the date of moving fresh application for partition. Thereafter amended applications were filed. During the proceedings, the present petitioner contended that two appeals between the parties have been filed in the Hon''ble High Court of H.R and as such the partition proceedings cannot go on in the Revenue Court. The Id. A.C.Ist Grade vide his orders dated 14.10.1994, turned down this plea of the present petitioner observing that no documentary evidence such as proof of admission of appeals or copy of stay etc. has been produced by the present petitioner in support of his oral claim. Feeling aggrieved with these orders of the A.C.Ist Grade, the present petitioner filed two appeals before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kangra exercising the powers of Collector, who vide order dated 14.3.1995 passed in Appeal Nos. 97/94 and 96/94. remanded the matter to the A.C. 1st Grade, on the ground that before proceeding further in the partition proceedings, the issue of question of title as has been raised by the present petitioner, be decided either himself or in case the matter relating to this issue is pending adjudication in any Civil Court, the final decision in that case may be awaited. He also directed the appellant (present petitioner) to produce the documents relating to issue of question of title pending adjudication in the Hon''ble High Court 4. On remand, the Id. A.C.Ist Grade(Settlement) Circle Amb, himself proceeded to decide the issue of question of title and after hearing the parties, rejected the same vide order dated 30.11.1995. passed in case No 216/87 and 226/87. These orders of the A.C 1st Grade(Settlement) were again challenged by the present petitioner before the Settlement Collector, alleging that the issues of question of title is involved in these matters and two RSA No. 210/93 and 209/93 are already pending adjudication in the Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in this behalf. passed in case No 216/87 and 226/87. These orders of the A.C 1st Grade(Settlement) were again challenged by the present petitioner before the Settlement Collector, alleging that the issues of question of title is involved in these matters and two RSA No. 210/93 and 209/93 are already pending adjudication in the Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in this behalf. The Id Assistant Settlement Officer exercising the powers of Collector, vide order dated 26.2 .1996, allowed both the appeals No. 6/96 and 7/96 by setting aside the orders dated 30 11 1995 of the A.C 1st Grade and remanded the matter back to him with a direction that the partition of the suit lands be carried out after the decision of the Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in RSA No. 210/93 and 209/93. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the above order dated 26.2.1996, of the Settlement Collector, Kangra present respondents filed two appeals before the Commissioner, Kangra Division. During the pendency of the appeals, the posts of Commissioners in H.P. were abolished in the year 2000, therefore, the matters were transferred to the Settlement Collector, Kangra exercising the power of Commissioner. The Ld. Settlement Kangra, accepted both the appeals No. 11/2000 and 12/2000 vide orders dated 7.2.2001, and directed the lower court to proceed with the partition proceedings further, observing that the RSA No. 209/93 and 210/93 have been dismissed by the Hon''ble High Court vide judgments dated 17.8 1999. Hence, the present revision petitions. 6. I have heard the Id, counsel for the petitioner and Id. counsel for respondent No. 6, while the Id. vice counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5 failed to argue the matter, was asked to file written augments within a period of 15 days. No such written arguments have been received on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision petitions and additional grounds filed vide CMA No. 178/2008 and 72/2008, argued that the order dated 17.8.1999 passed by the Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in RSA No. 210/93 and 209/93, have further been challenged in the Hon''ble Apex Court by fling a SLP. 1 to 5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision petitions and additional grounds filed vide CMA No. 178/2008 and 72/2008, argued that the order dated 17.8.1999 passed by the Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in RSA No. 210/93 and 209/93, have further been challenged in the Hon''ble Apex Court by fling a SLP. He further argued that the present revision petitions were dismissed in default by this court vide order dated 9.3.2004 and thereafter, on the grounds put forth by the present petitioner, the same have been restored on 15.7.2005, but during the intervening period, the husband of respondent No. 4 Shri Onkar Singh, who is a retired Patwari and a very influential person, in connivance with the Revenue Officers and Officials, got the partition sanctioned on 7.6.2004 behind the back of the present petitioner which is against the principal of natural justice. He further argued that no ''fard kabza mauka'' was got prepared and the partition has been effected in such a manner that courtyard, cattle shed, katcha abadi of the petitioner along with other land which is in possession of the petitioner has been allotted to the respondents. He further contended that since the orders dated 7.6.2004, vide which partition has been sanctioned behind the back of the petitioner and that too during the pendency of the applications for restoration of present revision petitions, the orders so passed by the A.C.1st Grade, are wrong, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and principle of natural justice. 7. In reply, the Id. counsel for respondent no. 6 who has also filed written submissions, argued that the SLP filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court, and as such, the issue qua question of title has attained finality and the revenue courts have no jurisdiction to sit over the decision of the Civil Court which has attained finality Ld. counsel further argued that the petitioner is only trying to linger on the partition proceedings on one pretext or another. counsel further argued that the petitioner is only trying to linger on the partition proceedings on one pretext or another. He further submitted that the partition proceedings has been finalized as after the order dated 7.6.2004 passed in case No. 97/P/2004 and 98/P/2004, the instrument of partition has also been prepared and executed in revenue record vide mutations No. 224 and 223 attested on 28.7.2004 in the presence of parties He further argued that the entries have already been incorporated in the subsequent jamabandis for the year 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2014-15, accordingly, and as such revision petitions are not maintainable in the present form. Ld. counsel further added that order dated 7.6.2004, has already attained finality as no appeal has been filed against the same. In support of his contention, the Id. counsel referred to [PLJ 2006, 672], [ 2001(1) PLR 575 ] and [2014(B) Latest HLJ, 626]. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have also gone through the record of the courts below minutely. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the question of title has already been decided by the Civil Court. In the revision petitions the main ground was that the matter regarding issue of title is pending before the Hon''ble Apex Court in which the judgement of Hon''ble High Court dated 17.8.1999, delivered in RSA No. 210/1993 and 209/1993, has been assailed byway of SLP. But, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner produced no document in support of his claim and the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.6, has argued that the SLP filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court. However, no [document has also been produced by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.6, but the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner failed to rebut this fact and as such, it is clear that the issue regarding question of title has already been decided by the Civil Court and as such has attained finality. Thus, the present revision petitions have become infructuous on these grounds. 9. Further, perusal of the case file of the A.C. 1st Grade, reveals that after dismissal of the RSA on 17.8.1999, the Settlement Collector, Kangra exercising the powers of Commissioner, vide order dated 7.2.2001 accepted the appeals of the present respondents and directed the lower court to proceed further in the partition case. 9. Further, perusal of the case file of the A.C. 1st Grade, reveals that after dismissal of the RSA on 17.8.1999, the Settlement Collector, Kangra exercising the powers of Commissioner, vide order dated 7.2.2001 accepted the appeals of the present respondents and directed the lower court to proceed further in the partition case. Thereafter, the mode of partition was devised by the A.C.1st Grade on 25.7.2001, in presence of both the parties, which do not seem to have been agitated by any of the parties. This clearly shows that the petitioner was willing to partition the land in question and instead of challenging the mode of partition, he kept on pursuing the revision petitions which were mainly filed on the issue of question of title. Thereafter, when the revision petitions were dismissed in default by this court on 9.3.2004 and the record of the courts below were returned, the A.C.Ist Grade, proceeded to partition the land in question and confirmed the partition vide order dated 7.6.2004. Instead of filing an appeal against the order dated 7.6.2004, the present petitioner filed amended revision petitions in the year 2008 before this court challenging the aforesaid orders of the A.C.Ist Grade, but by that time the instruments of partition were also drawn and the mutations were also attested. Not only this, the entries have also been incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 2004-2005. Now, the entries have also been made in the subsequent jamabandis for the year 2009-10 and 2014-15, and it would not be appropriate to negate the entire process of partition which has started way back in the year 1984 at this stage. The copies of jamabandis for the year 2001-02 showing the entry of mutations No. 223 and 224 qua partitions in remarks columns and copies of subsequent jamabandis have been annexed by the Id. counsel for the respondent with his written arguments. Moreover, in the revised revision petitions, the petitioner has failed to point out and substantiate any specific illegality or irregularity having been committed by the Id. A.C.Ist Grade, which warrants interference of this court by invoking revisional jurisdiction. The present revision petitions are accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. Orders be communicated to the parties. The records of the courts below be returned and file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.