KASHMIR SINGH Vs. SHRI UDHO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against an order dated 1.2.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 in case No. 240 of 2000.

(2.) Before facts of the case are that one Shri Udho Ram, respondent No.1 in the present revision petition, filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hamirpur for partition of land held measuring 111 -8 Kanals held in joint ownership alongwith the other parties at Village Fafan, Tehsil Hamirpur. The application was rejected by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 7.6.1995 on the grounds that the land was recorded as Charand Tikadaran of Tikkas Saned and Tikker and some of the land owners have raised objections against its partition. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Shri Udho Ram filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub -Division, Hamirpur who remanded the matter on 31.3.2000 to the Assistant Collector to decide it afresh with the observations that the land in dispute is no longer a grazing ground and majority of the co -shares thereof have consented for the partition and in view of the increasing population and need for productivity, the partition should be allowed. This order was assailed by the present petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act. The learned Deputy Commissioner held, that as per Sub -Section 2(b) of Section 124 of the Act, there is a bare for allowing partition of a grazing ground but the same confers a discretionary power upon the revenue Officer for allowing partition if it does not cause inconvenience to the co -shares. He observed that the land is in the ownership of the parties majority of whom have agreed to the partition. The persons raising objections are those who reside in the village where this land is situated and are availing all the rights of its cultivation, grass cutting etc. He further held that in case the partition is allowed, it will not adversely effect any of the land owners but will allow all the co -shares to use this land. He, therefore, upheld the order of the Collector on 0.2.2003 by dismissing the revision petition.

(3.) The petitioners have now filed the present revision petition before this court on the grounds that the grazing rights of the co sharers of all the three villagers are of civil nature and cannot be diminished. It has been averred that the view taken by the Collector is contrary to the entries of the revenue record.