KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that the predecessor -in -interest of the present petitioners in CWP No. 2067/2007 Sh. Lal Chand filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Settlement), Nadaun for partitioning his joint holdings comprised in khata Khatauni No. 5/6 khasra Nos. 5,8,9,10,11, 12, 74, 164, 167,178 and 180, kitas 11 measuring 92 Kanals 16 Malras situated in Tikka Dhaneta, Mouza Hathol, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade framed the mode of partition on 18.12.1991. Sh. Lal Chand preferred an application on 26.5.1993. Sh. Devi Chand filed reply to the same. The final partition of the land was sanctioned on 30.9.1993. Sh. Lal Chand, predecessor -in -interest of the present petitioners in CWP No. 2067/2007 and Sohan Lal petitioner in CWP N0. 2071/2007 filed two appeals against this order before the Settlement Collector, Hamirpur. He dismissed the appeal on 18.6.1994. Sh. Lal Chand and Sohan Lal preferred two separate revision petitions before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He recommended the matter to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) for his observations that the orders by the courts below are required to be quashed and set aside and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade should be permitted to conduct the partition proceedings afresh on 20.5.1997. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 10.10.2006 did not accept the recommendations made by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade sanctioning the final partition on 30.9.1993 and the order of the Settlement Collector dated 18.6.1994. S/Sh. Lal Chand and Devi Chand expired when the matter was heard by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and their legal representatives were brought on record. Thereafter the petitioners have also filed review petitions before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). These were rejected by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 28.8.2007.

(3.) MR . R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dated 10.10.2006 and 28.8.2007 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has further argued that the order passed by the Land Settlement Collector 18.6.1994 was contrary to record. He further contended that there is neither any description of land nor the details of khasra numbers mentioned in the order passed by the Settlement Collector, Hamirpur about the earlier partition proceedings. His further contention is that the Settlement Collector could not take into consideration the earlier partition which never formed subject matter of the present partition proceedings. He lastly contended that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner was based on facts and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the order passed by the Settlement Collector on 18.6.1994.