JEET RAM Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been referred to this Court by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi under Section 17(3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 vide his recommendation dated 26.12.1997.

(2.) Brief facts of the cases are that Smt. Devki Devi, on her behalf and that of her sons S/Sh. Dev Raj and Kamal Lal, filed an application for partition of holdings held in joint ownership with the other parties in village Majhot, Tehsil Sadar Bilaspur before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bilaspur. The Assistant Collector framed the mode of partition on 19.5.1978. The final partition was sanctioned on 21.7.1978. The mode of partition was assailed in appeal before the Collector, Sub Division Bilaspur who accepted the appeal on 21.12.1979 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector with the specific direction that the case be decided afresh by adopting de novo proceedings from the date on which the ex parte order had been passed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the final partition was sanctioned on 24.3.1981. This order was also challenged in appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector who dismissed the appeal as being time barred on 31.5.1989. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi who, while adjudicating on this petition 26.12.1997 has observed that summons were sent to the petitioner for service for 6.12.1980 and the process server, while reporting that the petitioner has refused to receive a copy of the summon, affixed the same on the residential house of the petitioner which he was not competent to do. According to the learned Commissioner, the trial Court has therefore, committed a material irregularity in conducting the proceedings and prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The learned Commissioner has held that these interested persons were condemned unheard and therefore the orders of both the Courts below should be quashed and the proceedings should be conducted a fresh.

(3.) The record of the case has been seen and Counsel for the parties heard. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the mode of partition was finalized without serving the present petitioner Shri Jeet Ram, who was serving at Solan. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade had committed material irregularities in carrying out the partition proceedings since the Fard Kabja Mauka was not prepared in the case. Smt. Devki Devi had filed a civil suit regarding the very area and she was stopped from seeking the partition through this partition proceeding. This issue was ignored by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and he had preceded with the partition proceedings.