PIARA SINGH Vs. TARLOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed u/s 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, against the order dated 10 -9 -1997 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, Dharamsala.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that two applications dated 15 -12 -1992 were filed for partition of land by Shri Amar Singh and Shri Ram Rattan, present respondents before the Tehsildar -cum -Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Una in respect of land measuring -0 -53 -62 Ha, bearing Khewat No. 395, Khatauni No 642, 643, 644 khasra Nos. 2232, 2025, 2222, 2231, 2040 kitas 5 as per Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jaddi Sani and land measuring 0 -06 -15 Ha, bearing Khewat No. 394 Khatauni No. 639, 640, 641 khasra No. 2234, 2221, 2223, 2224 situated in village/ Up Mohal Kasba, Mohal Bassal, Tehsil and District Una as per copy of Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jaddi Sani for the year 1987 -88 which were claimed to be two separate joint holdings. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade after enquiring into the matter, sanctioned the mode of partition vide his order dated 19 -9 -1994 and the cases were sent to the field Revenue Officials for partitioning the land on the spot. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade sanctioned the final partition on 04 -09 -1995 and instrument of partition was also finalized accordingly. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Una who dismissed the same vide his order dated 13 -11 -1995. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on the grounds that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Una had not effected the partition in accordance with the mode of partition. The Id. Divisional Commissioner vide his order dated 10 -9 -1997 rejected the revision petition and hence the present revision petition has been filed before this court.

(3.) The record of the case has been seen and counsel for the parties heard. Counsel for the petitioners mainly stressed that Khasra No. 2232 had been allotted to the respondents while this was the land abutting the road and being a valuable piece of land should have been apportioned amongst the applicants for the partition in a fair manner.