MOHINDER SINGH Vs. DHARMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, vide his order, dated 28 -5 -1984 has recommended that the orders passed by the Revenue Officers below should be set -aside and the case remanded to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, with the direction that the entire land holding should be partitioned and not only a portion of the holding. It has been observed by the Divisional Commissioner that partial partition should not have been allowed by the Revenue Officer below.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Dharmi, who has since passed away, applied for partition of the land comprised in Khata No. 39, measuring 0 -72 -00 hectares, situated in Mobal Uperla Bhaniar, Tehsil and District Kangra. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, allowed the application and also sanctioned the mode of partition. Aggrieved by that order of the Assistant Collector, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Lai, present petitioners, preferred a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner. It has been observed by the Divisional Commissioner that while the original Khata number of the land in the joint ownership of the parties was 14, it was later, split into three Khatas bearing Nos. 37, 38 and 39. Dharmi moved an application for th 5 partition ot the land comprised in Khata No. 39 only. The present petitioners opposed the partition because they feared that their interest would be jeopardised if only one Khata number was partitioned Moreover, they felt that their possession would not be kept intact unless separate numbers for passage and water channels were created.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the court record. It is a settled preposition of law that partition of a portion of the joint property cannot be allowed without the consent of the parties. A landholding has been defined as a share or portion of an estate held by one land owner or jointly by two or more land owners. Further, a holding may consist of a single field or of more than one field. It, therefore, seems logical that an application for partition made by a co -owner should not he allowed if he has applied for a partition of the same fields included in the joint holding without including the other fields unless other co -owners agree to it. In the case Ramjidas v. Arjan Sing", PLJ 1968, page 241, it has been held that partial partition cannot be allowed unless all the co -sharers and transferees agree to the exclusion of a part of the joint holding from partition proceeding. In the instant case, Mohinder Sing and Harbans Lai have opposed the partition pf only one Khata out of the three Khatas. In facts the contention of the present petitioners is that all three Khatas should be partitioned simultaneously. Keeping in view of their objections, the recommendation made by the learned Divisional Commissioner is accepted and the order dated 3 -8 -1 81 of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, allowing the partition of land comprised in Khata No. 39, is set -aside The case is accordingly, remanded to him for disposal afresh in the light of the observations made above. The order may be communicated. Order accordingly.