Vasu Dev and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioners have purchased land vide registered sale deed from one Smt. Sagro on 2nd January, 1978. Respondent No.6 purchased land from respondent No.7 by way of sale deed dated 25th August, 1998. Respondent No.6 moved an application for partition before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 23rd October, 1998. It was registered as 15/BT/99. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade proposed the mode of partition on 6th January, 2000 in presence of both the parties. Thereafter, the papers were sent to Field Kanungo for effecting partition on the spot. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade after receiving the papers from the field agency confirmed the partition on 17th February, 2000. Thereafter respondent No.8 also purchased land from respondent No.7 in the year 2000. She also moved an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for partition. The documents were sent to the Field Kanungo. The partition was confirmed on 30th August, 2001. Petitioners preferred appeals bearing Nos.45/2001 and 87/2001 before the Sub Divisional Collector. He rejected the same on 28th August, 2003. Thereafter the petitioners preferred two revision petitions bearing Nos. 62/2004 and 63/2004 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division. He rejected the same on 19th March, 2009. The petitioners preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). He dismissed the same on 1st July, 2011.

Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the order of partition is not in accordance with law. He has referred to Chapter IX of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 (Act No.6 of 1954). He then argued that the petitioners had already preferred an appeal against order dated 17th February, 2000, however, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not stay the proceedings of partition. He lastly contended that once the land has been partitioned, the second partition could not take place on the basis of the application moved by respondent No.8.

We have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities carefully.

The petitioners have purchased the land on 2nd January, 1978. Respondents No.6 and 8 have also purchased land from one of the co-sharers on 25th August, 1998 and in the year 2000, respectively. An application was preferred by respondent No.6 for partition on 23rd October, 1998. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade has proposed the mode of partition on 6th January, 2000. He has also recorded the statements of the parties. Only thereafter, the documents were sent to Field Kanungo. Thereafter the mode of partition was confirmed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 17th February, 2000 in the presence of General Power of Attorney of the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Neither any oral nor written objections were filed at the time when the partition was finally confirmed. Similarly, an application was preferred by respondent No.8 after following due procedure prescribed under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Thereafter the Assistant Collector 1st Grade proposed the mode of partition. It was done after recording the statements of parties. The petitioner in his statement has stated that his Khata may be kept joint with Janak Singh and Sher Singh. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade confirmed the partition on 30th August, 2001 after receiving the documents from the Field Kanungo.

In the present case since no stay was granted by the appellate court, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade continued proceeding with the matter.

We have gone through the orders passed by the appellate authorities, i.e. Sub Divisional Collector, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner carefully. It was always open to the petitioners to lodge protest at the time when mode of partition was proposed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The petitioners in both the applications preferred by respondents No.6 and 8 have not lodged any protest in writing or orally.

Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Khasra Nos. 151 and 524 could not be divided. Suffice to say that since land measuring 0-27-61 hectares had already been ordered to be divided from these Khasra numbers, this piece of land was excluded from the total land and the remaining land was partitioned as per order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, dated 30th August, 2001. We do not see any infirmity, illegality or procedural irregularity in the orders passed by the authorities below.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.