RAI SINGH Vs. BOGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the orders of Commissioner, Hisar dated 11.6.1992 vide which he had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of Collector Dabwali dated 26.2.1992 and Assistant Collector IInd Grade Dabwali dated 22.4.1991 in partition proceedings involving acceptance of the mode of partition by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. The Collector and the Commissioner had upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and did not agree with the petitioner's contention that there was a question of title between the parties on account of a civil suit which was pending and, therefore, the partition proceedings should not proceed further.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner argued that pre-emption suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents No. 1 and 2 who had purchased the land and the suit was decreed on 14.9.1993 in favour of the petitioner. Appeal filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 was also dismissed on 16.3.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the pre-emption amount in the Court and, thus, the position of ownership changed in favour of the petitioner. In view of this, it was contended that the partition proceedings had become infructuous and should not have been allowed to proceed on the application of respondents No. 1 and 2.

(3.) PRE -emption proceedings between the parties do not raise a question of title in my view and partition proceedings should not be deferred on that account. In the present case, the position would have altered if the High Court had not given the stay orders on the operation of the lower Court judgment. It is significant that even the pre-emption money deposited by petitioner has been withdrawn by him after the stay order of the High Court. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are fully entitled to seek partition of land which they have purchased and even if the petitioner ultimately wins his case in pre-emption proceedings, partition of the land on the application of respondents No. 1 and 2 will not result in any loss or injustice to the petitioner. l agree with the finding of the Commissioner that the petitioner has been challenging the partition of land merely to prolong the proceedings and deny the respondents No. 1 and 2 their right to cultivate the land peacefully after getting it partitioned. There being no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before Assistant Collector IInd Grade Dabwali on 27.1.1997. Announced. Petition dismissed.