JAI RAM Vs. TEKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAI Ram and others, filed an application for partition of 144 kanals 6 marlas land situated in Village Umra, tehsil Hansi, district Hisar before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hansi. Teka filed his objections to Naksha 'Kha'. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade directed, vide his order dated 12.10.2000, that Naksha 'Kha' be amended to the extent that keeping in view the share and possession of the parties, killa No. 242/2 should be attached to the Kurra of Teka and Killa No. 78/10 should be attached to the Kurra of the applicant and the adjustment in area according to the share of each party, should be made from the adjoining killa Nos. and that no other alteration should be made in Naksha 'Kha'. The amended Naksha 'Kha' was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 23.11.2000. Teka filed an appeal against this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum- Collector, Hansi, who dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 16.10.2001. Teka filed a revision petition against the order of Collector, Hansi before the Commissioner, Hisar Division. Commissioner, Hisar Division, found, vide his order dated 20.5.2003, that the revision had partial merits. He held that "as the impugned land comprised several Khewats, the share-holders had a right to be assigned land in every Khewat, as this was specifically provided in the mode of partition". He accepted the revision petition partially and remanded the case to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hansi, for partition by assigning land to revisionist in every Khewat. Aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner, Jai Ram and others have filed this revision petition.

(2.) THE revision petition was admitted on 6.10.2003. While admitting the revision, the operation of the order dated 20.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, and further partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hansi were stayed till further orders. Tahsildar, Hansi reported on 25.2.2004 that Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 refused to accept notice saying that they had no concern with this case. A similar report dated 25.10.2004 was received from Tahsildar, Hansi that Smt. Vidya Devi and Smt. Kamla Devi, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 respectively, also refused to accept notice saying that they have nothing to do with this case. Therefore, proceedings were conducted ex parte against these respondents. Arguments were heard on 8th February, 2005.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent argued that partition proceedings are summary proceedings and Civil Procedure Code cannot be strictly applied. The mode of partition gives only the broad principles to be adopted in the partition proceedings. The objections to Naksha 'Kha' were filed before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade because it was not in accordance with the mode of partition. Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hansi as well as Collector, Hansi had not dealt with these objections. Collector, Hansi has passed a non- speaking order without reasoned rebuttal of the objections filed by the respondent. Teka, Surta and Maiya were the three sons of Sheo Chand. The ancestral land in Khewat No. 348 has to be divided equally giving one-third share each to Teka and to the descendants of Surta and Maiya. The other two Khewats namely 57 and 383 were purchased by Surta and Teka. Therefore, the lands in these Khewats have to be divided giving one half share each to Teka and Surta. Since possession of Teka was in both these Khewats, giving him lands in Khewat No. 57 and keeping him out of Khewat No. 383 is against the mode of partition. The Commissioner had correctly held that lands should be given in all three Khewats.