SUBE SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS No. 5 to 8 filed an application for partition of the land on October 21, 1994. The petitioner raised certain objections. These objections were rejected by the Assistant Collector vide order dated July 31, 1995. The petitioner filed an appeal. It is dismissed by the Collector vide order dated October 29, 1996. The revision petition was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated November 19, 1998. The petitioner filed a second revision petition. It was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on September 15, 1999. Hence this petition. The petitioner prays that the four orders passed by the revenue authorities, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-1 to P-4 with the writ petition be set aside.

(2.) THE claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 5, 7 and 8.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY Bihari Lal was the common ancestor. He had three children, the petitioner Sube Singh, Dharam Singh, respondent No. 5 and Nanti their sister. On June 5, 1993, the Civil court passed a decree by which Nanti conceded her share in the property in favour of respondents No. 6 to 8, who are the sons of Dharma Singh, respondent No. 5. After the decree, a mutation was sanctioned in their favour. After the mutation having been sanctioned, respondents No. 5 to 8 filed the petition for the partition of the land. After the partition proceedings had been initiated, the petitioner filed a suit on November 21, 1994 to challenge the decree dated June 5, 1993. The suit is still pending.