NAND LAL Vs. JAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has arisen from the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Commissioner, Shimla Division dated 5.9.2007 in revenue appeal no. 31/2006.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case arc that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Solan had attested mutation no. 2056 on 13.8.2002 whereby private partition of land comprised in khata no. 555 measuring 2.79 -46 hectares in mauza Basal, Patti Kather, Tehsil and district Solan\owned and possessed by the petitioner and respondent jointly in equal share was affirmed. Aggrieved by this, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Collector, Solan sub division, alongwith application for condonation of delay. The said Collector had condoned the delay in the filing of the appeal vide order dated 16.10.2003. The present petitioner was not satisfied with the said order and had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division. The Commissioner had however dismissed the appeal on 4.1.2005. The Collector thereafter proceeded with the case and ultimately on 26.10.2005 allowed the appeal of the present respondent and set aside the above said mutation. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner had again filed an appeal before the Commissioner who not finding any merit in the said appeal had dismissed the same vide order dated 5.9.2007. The present petitioner has now come to this court in revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel stated that as per Chapter 14(1) of the Land Records Manual, the patwari is bound to enter voluntary partition and no written application is required Learned counsel further referred to Chapter 8 (1) of the Land Records Manual which provides for attestation of even oral [ran8actions. As per learned counsel, the Commissioner has ignored Chapters, 14(1) and 8(1) of the Land Records Manual. Learned counsel also cited the judgments in the cases Sudama Ram and Ors Vs. Ram Dhan and Another [Lahore Law Times Vol. LXXI -1992 p.17] and Pritam Singh. Vs. Dhian Singh and Ors [2003 CWT.W (HP)p.36]. Learned Counsel also cited Angrez Singh and Gurmej Singh Vs Jeet Singh and Ors., LLT. Vol -LXXVI -1997, p.12]. Learned Counsel next drew attention to section 135 of the Land Revenue Act on which the Commissioner has relied, which nowhere lays down that parties cannot have a private partition when partition proceedings are pending. As per learned counsel, the procedure prescribed in the Land. Revenue Act has been followed. The revenue courts cannot go into intricate questions of law and thereafter the mutation was correctly sanctioned. On this ground, the orders of the lower courts need to be set aside.