MUINNI DEVI Vs. GULAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the above titled two revision petitions, which have arisen out of the same facts.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents applied to the j Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kandaghat for partition of land held in joint ownership with other co -sharers including the present petitioners. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade devised a mode of partition on 2.9.1990 and subsequently passed the final order of partition on 10.2.1993. The present petitioners filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, Sub -Division, Kandaghat who dismissed the same on 30.7.1993. Later on 25.9.1993, the present petitioners filed an application before the Collector, Sub -Division, Kandaghat seeking to recall the order dated 30.7.1993 on the grounds that no Naksha Alif was prepared while partitioning the land in dispute. Besides, it was averred that khasra No.66 measuring 0 -18 biswas which has been in the possession of the petitioners and is near their houses, has been given to the respondents and also that khasra No.51 measuring 1 -6 biswas has also been wrongly allotted to other co -sharers while it is in the possession of the petitioners. The learned Collector, visited the spot and accepted the application on 30.4.1996 with the observation that Khasra No.66 is adjoining to the house of the present petitioners but has been allotted to the respondents Smt Janki, while khasra No. 40/2 while is adjoining to the house of Smt. Janki has been allotted to Smt Muni & Smt Satya, the petitioners. The learned Collector attributed this to the non preparation of Naksha Alif". He recommended the matter to this Court under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act for necessary directions in order to rectify the errors as mentioned by him. This courts rejected the recommendation of the learned Collector vide order dated 25.11.1999 on the grounds that the learned Collector, could not have entertained a revision petition against an order passed by himself or his predecessor and the application preferred before him could, at best be describes as an application for review. The matter was, however, sent to the learned Commissioner (Revenue) to see whether the impugned order could be deemed to be a request for seeking permission for review of the order of the Collector, dated 30.7.1993 vide which order, the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade dated 10.2.1993 was rejected. The Commissioner (Revenue) vide an order dated 4.6.2001 dismissed the matter with the observations that the learned Collector had, while passing the earlier order dated 30.7.1993 observed that the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade had visited the spot in the presence of all the parties on 10.2.1993 and he had passed a speaking order on the partition application. The learned Commissioner also observed that the subsequent order dated 30.4.1996 passed by the learned Collector, Kandaghat is mis -conceived and is not maintainable and that a review is permissible only in cases of material irregularity. Now, the present petitioners have filed the revision petition No. 123/2001 against the order of the Collector, Kandaghat dated 30.7.1993 passed in appeal No.8/8 -93 and the revision petition No. 124/2001 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Revenue) dated 4.6.2001 vide which the permission to allow review of the order of the learned Collector dated 30.7.1993, was declined.

(3.) The record of the courts below was called for and examined and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard.