BALBIR SINGH Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions filed by Shri Balbir Singh son of Shri Het Ram resident of village Tikkar, Pargna Bharoli, Tehsil Kandaghat, Distt. Sofen, are directed against the order dated 31.12.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Shimla Division in revision petitions Nos. 55/98, 56/98 and 57/98. The facts and question of law in all the three petitions are same, therefore all the three have been clubbed together for adjudication and are disposed of by this single order.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that one Shri Surat Ram the predecessor -in -interest of the present respondent No. 1 Partap Singh filed three separate applications before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Tehsildar) Kandaghat seeking partition of land held jointly by the parties in three different villages namely (i) comprised in Khewat No. 3/4 to 6, 4/7 to 13, 5/14, 6/15, 7/16 -17 situated in village Banota, Pargna Bharoli (ii) Khewat No. 3/4 to 10, 4/11, 5/12, 6/13 to 36, 7/37 to 39, 8/40 to 43, 9/44, 10/45, 11/46, 12/47 and 20/62 to 64 situated in village Kote, Pargna Bharoli and (iii) Khewat No. 2/5 to 11, 3/12, 4/13 to 16, 4/17 to 20, 5/21, 6/22 and 7/23 situated in village Tikkar, Pargna Bharoli, Tehsil Kandaghat, Distt. Solan. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade Kandaghat after commencing the proceedings the cases proposed mode of partition vide order dated 1.11.1975. Against this order, S/Shri Balbir Singh and Man Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Kandaghat on the grounds that they had not been given opportunity to produce their evidence in support of their case and the mode of partition prepared by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was thus illegal and void. It was further contended that the objections raised by them were not heard by the learned Assistant Collector below, therefore the order passed by him was bad in the eyes of law.

(3.) The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record of the case, accepted the appeal vide order dated 25.6.1977 by setting aside the order dated 1.11.1975 of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for deciding the case afresh after affording proper opportunity to all the interested persons. The learned Collector while accepting the appeal observed that the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade had not heard the objections raised by S/Shri Balbir Singh and Man Singh with regard to issues of private partition between the parties that took place as back as 58 years, improvement of land and sanction of mutation of inheritance in favour of Surat Ram ignoring the rest of Co -sharers. On remand, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade again processed the partition proceedings. After hearing both the parties again, going through the record and considering the objections raised by the present petitioner, the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade held that no private partition had taken place amongst the co -sharers and that no evidence was adduced regarding mutation of inheritance of Ganga Ram in favour of Surat Ram co -sharer. He also held that question of title as raised was not involved in the matter, vide order dated 5.6.1980. This order was further challenged by S/Shri Balbir Singh and Man Singh in an appeal before the Collector Kandaghat who after hearing the case dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.12.1981 with the direction to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to proceed ahead with the partition proceedings in the case. Not satisfied with this order of the Collector Kandaghat, Shri Balbir Singh, the present petitioner filed revision petition before the Commissioner, Shimla Division reiterating the grounds/objections as was pleaded before the lower courts. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and going through the record of the case and the grounds taken before him, observed that the objections/grounds as taken by the petitioner before him had been adequately dealt with by the lower courts and found no ground for interfering with the concurrent findings of the courts below. He also held that no partition had been effected between the parties and no question of title was involved and as a result he rejected the revision petition vide order dated 17.6.1986 with further direction to the Assistant Collector to proceed with partition proceedings in accordance with law. Shri Balbir Singh the present petitioner assailed this order of Commissioner Shimla Division dated 17.6.1986 before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue and Appeals) H.P. The learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue and Appeals) who after hearing the parties rejected the plea of private partition and dismissed the revision petition vide his .order dated 27.8.1987.