ROSHAN LAL Vs. VARINDER KAKKAR (D) THROUGH LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by Shri Roshan Lal son of Ranjha Ram, resident of Ram Nagar (mant), Tehsil Dharamshal, Distt. Kangra, against the order of the learned commissioner, Kangra Division dated 29.7.94 whereby the revision petition of the petitioner dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent Shri Varinder Kakkar presented an application to the Assistant Collector, 1st grade Kangra on 01.10.1984 for partition of land jointly held by both the parties pertaining to Khata No. 220, khatoni No. 470 to 474, khasra No. 1038, 1039, 1041,1023,1024,1025,1026,1040 plots 8, measuring 0 -43 -68 Hects. And land entered in Khata No. 221, khatoni No. 475 to 482, khasra No.1031 to 1034, 1029,1030, 1035, 963, 1028,964,971 to 974 situated in Mohal Mantkhas, Tehsil Kangra. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade formulated the mode of partition on 07.04.1986 and -in pursuance thereof sanctioned the partition and instrument of partition vide order dated 4.7.1988.

(3.) Against the order dated 04.07.198B of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade sanctioning the instrument of partition, the present petitioner Shri Roshan Lal filed an appeal before the Sub -Divisional collector, Dharamshala on the grounds that he had purchased 2 kanals and 4 marlas of land out of akhasra No. 98 khatoni No. 184, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1966 -67 of Tikka and Mauza Mantkhas, Tehisl Dharamshala vide registered sale -dated 21.06.1973, from shri Khazana son of Shri Banka resident of the aforesaid Tika and Mauza. He also purchased another piece of land measuring 0 -9 marlas from one Shri Bhullar son of Niranjan resident of Mantkhas vide registered sale deed dated 05 -05 -1978. During settlement operations, he alleged that his land had been reduced from 2 kanals 9 Marias to 2 Kanals by an order of Settlement Collector dated 6 -3 -1983. it was contended that on coming to know this order of the Settlement Officer, he filed Civil Suit in the court of Sr. Sub -Judge, Kangra and during the pendency of the Civil suit and stay of the learned Civil Court, the Revenue Officer should not have altered the revenue entries.