MADHO RAM Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Commissioner, Simla Division, vide his order, dated 25 -4 -1984 has recommended that the orders dated 31 -3 -1981 and 24 -3 -1982 of the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, Bangana and the Collector, Una Sub -Division, respectively may be set aside and the appeal preferred by Madho Ram be accepted. He made this recommendation on the ground that the private partition alleged to have been effected between the parties had not been affirmed by the Revenue Officer in accordance with the provisions of the section 135 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act. Moreover, the private partition is not acceptable to all the co -sharers and it does not bear the signatures of all of them and, therefore, it would not be binding on the parties. Above all, the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, was not competent to change the entries in the record of rights in favour of Amar Singh.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent, Amar Singh filed an application before the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, Bangana, for correction of revenue entries in respect of the land comprising Khasra No 29, measuring 23.16 Kanals, stating that a .private partition had been effected between him and the present petitioners, who were the co sharers of the land. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, on the basis of the spot inspection, came to the conclusion that as Amar Singh was in peaceful possession of the land comprised in Khasra No 29, correction of entries, as sought by him, should be allowed. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector, Una hub -Division who dismissed the appeal This order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Simla Division, who as stated above, made a recommendation to the effect that the orders passed by the Revenue Officers below be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the court record. The contention of the present respondent, Amar Singh that a private partition had been effected between him and the other co -sharers it not corroborated by any documentary evidence. The factum ot the private partition was not reported to the halqa Patwari and no such entry was made by him in his Roznamacha Wakiyati Moreover, the procedure laid down under section 135 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act was also not followed in so far as an application was not made to the Revenue Officer for passing an order affirming the private partition. In the circumstances, the Field Kanungo should not have changed the revenue entries initially in favour of one of the petitioners, Ranjhu and subsequently. Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, also should not have made the correction in the revenue record on the basis of the possession of the respondent, Amar Singh. In other words, both the Field Kanungo and the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade erred in changing the revenue entries. There is, apparently, a dispute about the status of the petitioners, who were entered as "Gair Maurusi" by the Field Kanungo whereas according to the respondent, they were the co -sharers of the land, in question. In view of the obvious dispute between the parties, the contention of private partition could n t be relied upon and accepted and therefore the revenue entries should not have been altered on that basis. In view of these facts, the Additional Commissioner was justified in making the recommendation for setting aside the order of the Revenue Officers below. His recommendation is accepted and the orders passed by the Revenue Officers below are set -aside and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (Land Reforms Officer) for disposal in accordance with law as according to the provisions contained in H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act he alone is competent to correct the entries in the revenue record. The order may be communicated to the parties. Order accordingly.