SANDHYA DEVI Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 5th April, 1995 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Srjrt Hari Chand and two others filed an application on 4th November, 1989 seeking partition of the land which they wound jointly with the respondents before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Arrib. The mode of partition was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide his order dated 4 -12 -1989. Feeling aggrieved by this order Shri Prem Chand and Smt. Gango Devi preferred an appeal before the Collector who . disposed of the same in terms of the compromise orally made but recorded before the Appellate Authority. This order was challenged by the present petition in an appeal filed before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division on the grounds that the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade has made an unauthorized alteration in the mode of partition. The petitioners also contended that fruit trees have been planted in khasra no. 1430 and there is a cattle shed in khasra no. 1404 which should have been allotted to the co -owners now in possession but this had not been provided for in the sanctioned mode of partition. The learned Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide an order dated 5 -4 -1995.

(3.) The present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that since the petitioners have submitted before the Collector that the record had been tampered with, this allegation should have been enquired into. It has been further alleged that the mode of partition sent to the Patwari was not the same as available on the case file. It was further been averred that the compromise was entered into by Shri Prem Chand who was not a duly authorized agent on their behalf. Acpording to the petitioners they have reclaimed khasra nos. 1430 and 1446 and have also developed khasra No. 1433 regarding which specific objections were raised before the courts below. It has also been claimed that partial partition cannot be allowed as has been done in the present case and that the alleged compromise was never reduced into writing. The record of the case has been seen and counsel for the parties heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the dispute was regarding the mode of partition. This had been tampered with/forged. The order dated 6.12.1991 recorded in this regard by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade clearly showed that initially ltem -2 was recorded as Kabza Bahal Rakh Kar". Later this had been substituted with "Kabza Tord Kar". Since Abadis were standing on the land in the dispute and there was also orchard on part of the land which had been grown by some of the co -sharers in the property, it was not reasonable to disturb the possession while carrying out the partition. He cited "Bardu versus Tara Chand & another 1986, SLC page 75" in this regard.