LAWS(HPH)-2023-7-25

NIKKA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On July 03, 2023
NIKKA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions arise out of order dtd. 30/11/2017 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, whereby two revision petitions preferred by the petitioner against the concurrent orders passed by the Revenue Authorities in two separate partition cases were dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner presented two applications under Sec. 123 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade for partition of joint land situated at revenue estate Village Barota, Pargna Ajmerpur (registered as Case No.43/9 of 2015) and another in respect of the joint land situated at revenue estate Dumehar, Pargna Ajmerpur (registered as Case No.44/9 of 2015). The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade devised the mode of partition in both the cases on 7/1/2015. The mode of partition was not challenged by any of the parties, hence, it attained finality. The process thereafter started for carrying out actual partition on the spot in accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition. It appears that a local commissioner was appointed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade for carrying out the partition in accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition. The record also shows that the present respondents gave their consent for appointment of local commissioner. The local commissioner conducted the demarcation on 31/1/2015 and carried out the partition. The objections thereafter were filed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. In these objections, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade passed an order on 29/7/2015, observing that the partition on the spot had not been carried out in accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade summoned the local commissioner, whereafter statement of local commissioner was recorded and the objections of the respondents were dismissed on 29/7/2015.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for interference with the impugned orders is made out.