Dalel Singh @ Daler Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the various orders which have culminated in the order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and has prayed that all these orders be set aside and the matter be ordered to be decided afresh. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his brother Bhupender Singh applied for partition of their agricultural lands to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhoranj, who prepared a mode of partition on 17.10.1997. Thereafter, on the basis of this mode of partition, the suit land was actually partitioned at the spot and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade after hearing the parties confirmed the partition vide his order dated 23.4.2001.

The present petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, Sub Division, Hamirpur. The Collector virtually upheld the partition. However, the Collector came to the conclusion that there was no illegality in the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. To arrive at a re-conciliation between the parties, who are brothers, he had visited the suit land at the request of both the parties. Thereafter on the agreement of the parties he had proposed that a road be carved out in the joint ownership of both the parties on the northern side of Khasra No.52. For this purpose alone he remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade.

The petitioner filed an appeal against this order. The Commissioner held that the Collector had gone beyond the mandate of law and further also held that the appeal itself was not maintainable. He restored the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner and prayed that the order of the learned Collector should be restored. The Financial Commissioner held that it was the petitioner who had challenged the order of the Collector in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and once this matter has been decided by the Divisional Commissioner it did not lie in his mouth to now pray that the order of Collector be restored and the matter was, therefore, again went back and after another round of litigation, the Financial Commissioner now vide his order dated 28.4.2012 has come to the conclusion that the revision petition is without any basis. Before us again, it has been urged that on the one hand the Commissioner in his order dated 20.11.2004 has held that the appeal is not maintainable but on the other hand has set aside the order of the Collector and upheld the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. As held by all the Revenue Authorities, it was the petitioner who approached the Commissioner, the Commissioner held that once the Collector had come to the conclusion that the partition was in accordance with law, the Collector could not have gone into the process of re-conciliation for the purpose of road. In this case the instrument of partition and the partition has become final in the previous proceedings. This cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings as rightly held by the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner who himself had challenged the order of the Collector now prays that the said order should be complied with and the order of the Commissioner is without jurisdiction. In our view he cannot be permitted to make such a submission. We therefore, find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.