SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. KARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has arisen form a recommendation made by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who, while adjudicating upon revision petition No. 349/2003 filed by the petitioners against order dated 11.11.2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Dehra, has held while sanctioning partition, the Assistant Collector has created three Khatas while as per the mode of partition, only two Khatas were proposed to be created. The Ld. Commissioner has also observed that new path has been erected while there was no provision for the same in the mode of partition. He has further observed that though Smt. Shankuntala Devi, the petitioner No.1 had filed an application before the assistant Collector that Khasra No. 1218 is vacant on spot and this area had wrongly not been partitioned, the Assistant Collector has just filed the application without assigning any reasons for the same. The Ld. Commissioner has held that these aspects have been ignored by the Collector in appeal also. He has therefore recommended that both the orders of the courts below are not sustainable and should be set aside and the matter should be sent back to he Assistant Collector for de aovo proceedings as per the mode of partition

(2.) In the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner Smt. Shankuntala Devi stressed that the mode of partition had been clearly violated by the A.C. 1st Grade while carrying out the partition. As per the mode of partition only 2 khatas were to be separated while in the course of implementation of the partition 3 khatas were made out. Besides, a new path was created only to benefit Shri Karan Singh, the present respondent. Also, Khasra No. 1228 was kept joint although Smt. Shankuntala had filed an application that the same should be included in the partition proceedings. He cited "Diwan Singh etc. versus Bur Singh, 1982 PLJ, Page 493" to support his contention that partition should be carried out blockwise, abadi land should be divided equally and minimum numbers of blocks should be created.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent argument that Khasra No. 1229 which was abadi had been kept in the common khata in accordance the statement of the parties recorded on 24.1.1997. Besides, the Assistant commissioner had been appointed as local Commissioner to inspect the site. He had visited the spot in 2003 and found that the path given to the respondents house located in Khasra No. 1213 was required to ensure access for the house owner. He requested that the partition proceedings should not be re -opened as this would only result in further litigation.