SIRI RAM Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Shri Siri Ram, Appellant under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, against the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla vide which the appeal of the present Respondents No. 1 to 5 was accepted.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the present Respondents No. 1 to 5 filed an application for separation of thek shares in respect of landed property comprising khata/khatauni Nos. 7/11 to 13, kita 50, area measuring 55 -19 bigha, situate in village Nuin, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan on the basis of Jambandi for the year 1986 -87. The learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade commenced the partition proceedings and finally concluded the partition on 5.5.1991. The instrument of partition was signed on 6.6.1991. On 27.10.1992, Shri Siri Ram, the present Appellant who was not a party to the case and whose name did not figure in the jamabandi for the year 1986 -87, challenged the final partition order dated 5.5.1991 before the Collector, Nalagarh in appeal, which was accepted vide order dated 30.9.1993. The Collector set -aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade with the directions that Shri Siri Ram be given opportunity of being heard as he had purchased the land from, one Smt. Vidhya Devi and he therefore should have been made a party in the partition proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by this order of Collector dated 30.9.1993, Shri Prem Chand (now deceased) and four others alongwith the present Respondents No. 1 to 5 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla who, vide order dated 12.12.1996 accepted the appeal by restoring the order dated 5.5.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh. Shri Siri Ram, has now filed this appeal before this Court taking the plea that the order of the Commissioner is contrary to law and facts, his observation that the appeal before the Collector was barred by limitation, is wrong as the limitation was rightly condoned by the Collector. He further contended that, the order of the Commissioner is based upon whims rather than on facts.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has reiterated the contents of the revision petition as well as the written arguments submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel contended that the Sub Divisional Collector has rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Kandaghat as Smt. Vidya, who was one of the co -sharers, had gifted her share in favour of the Petitioner and despite her having brought this fact to the notice of the Assistant Collector, he proceeded ex parte against her. According to the learned Counsel, the Assistant Collector was duty bound to implead the Petitioner as a party in the partition proceedings before him. The learned Counsel further contended that the learned Commissioner has wrongly held that the Petitioner was present when the possession of the land was delivered to the parties though, at para 9 of his order, he has also held that an error has been committed in not impleading Siri Ram, the present Petitioner, as a party. It has been also contended that the Petitioner as well as Smt. Radha to whom he has further gifted his share of the land are both entitled to maintain the revision petition.