PUNNI Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Smt. Punni has preferred a revision petition against the order, dated 5 -7 -1984 of the Collector, Solan District, By virtue of the impugned order, he dismissed the petitioners revision petition and upheld the order, dated 30 -9 -1983 of the Sub -Divisional Collector. It was held by him that since the respondents were co -sharers of the land, they were entitled to apply for the partition of their share in accordance with the provisions of section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. He also observed that the question of title had been decided by the Revenue Officer vide his order, dated 3 11 -1981 and since that order was not challenged, the same question could not be raised again, at this stage,

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent, Chet Ram applied for the partition of his share in the land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 4/7 measuring 15 -18 Bighas situated in village Ganol, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. His partition application was allowed vide order, dated 10 -5 -1983 by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kasauli. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner Smt. Punni preferred an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Collector, on the ground that an opportunity of being heard was not given to her and ex pane orders had been passed by the Revenue Officer below. She also contended that she was in exclusive possession of the land and a suit had been decreed against Smt. Dev Wati from the land had been purchased by the respondent, Chet Ram. She further stated that since Smt. Dev Wati had no title, right or interesl to sell the land to Chet Ram, the latter had no locus standi to apply for partition of his share. The Sub -Divisional Collector, however, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the respondent. Chet Ram who was a joint owner of the land and whose share had been duly enteted in the revenue record was competent to apply for the partition. This order of the Sub -Divisional Collector was assailed in revision petition before the District Collector, who as stated above, dismissed the same.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the court record. The main contention of the petitioner is that Smt. Dev Wati had sold her land without getting her share in the land partitioned. Moreover, since the question of title was involved, the land could not have been partitioned and, therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, deserved to be set -aside. It was also contended by her that an opportunity of being heard had not been given to her before the order on the application for the partition was passed by the Revenue Officer below.