RAM LAL Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, on 2.12.1994. The brief facts as contained in the reference are given below.

(2.) IN his order dated 26.4.1994 the Collector Ballabgarh made the applicant a party to the case but passed no order regarding his participation in the partition proceedings. The applicant had stated that on 13.10.1993 he had given an application to the Collector, Ballabgarh stating that in village Sotai of Tehsil Ballabgarh he had purchased certain land, specifically, khasra Nos. 19, 20, 11/2, 21, 25/2 of 41 and that, therefore he should be made a party to the case. He had also requested that he partition proceedings be started afresh. Respondent No. 2 agreed to this and accordingly the applicant was made a party and he requested that he be allotted a separate khewat, however, the Collector paid no heed to this. In reply counsel for the respondent No. 1 stated that all concerned had been made parties by the Assistant Collector but that the other respondents had deliberately avoided the summons served upon them and that the mode of partition had been properly prepared and Plan 'B' according to it. Finally, that the 'Sanadh Taksim' had issued, therefore, there was no force in the appeal. Counsel for respondent No. 3 claimed that his client had not been properly summoned by the Assistant Collector and that respondent No. 1 had contrived to ensure that he was not summoned which resulted in ex parte proceedings; further that co-sharers had not been made parties. Other points made were to the effect that the quality and price of the land had not been kept in view, the more valuable land had gone to respondent No. 1 and that the principle of equity had been violated while partitioning the land. Therefore, the Collector should have remanded the case. The Commissioner has concluded that there is no doubt that the appellant Ram Lal Dang had requested both in the Courts of the Assistant Collector and the Collector that he had become owner of some of the land which was partitioned w.e.f. 23.3.1990 and 25.11.1991 and, therefore, by not allowing him to participate in the proceedings the Assistant Ist Grade had committed a grave error. It would almost be seen that had colluded with the respondents. No decision was taken upon the request of the applicant that he be allotted a separate khewat and the Collector while accepting as a party rejected the appeal and thus provided no relief. He has accordingly recommended that the entire partition proceedings be carried out afresh.

(3.) NO doubt it is a law that once a 'Sanadh' has been prepared partition proceedings have been concluded but it is also the law that one cannot partition land between the two parties when a portion to it belongs to neither of them. Such a 'Sanadh' becomes meaningless. It is also the law of the land that no man can be denied access to his personal property.