The valuation of land, fertility, and locational advantages should be considered in the partition to ensure each shareholder receives property of equal value.

JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI B.P., J.: - The petitioners by this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenge the order dated 30-8-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in revision under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In the said order, the Additional Commissioner has found that while effecting the partition by metes and bounds, Tahsildar has not considered the valuation of lands involved in the partition, as one of the facts governing the grant of shares. The Additional Commissioner has further found that said order also does not indicate the consideration of other relevant aspects like fertility and locational advantages. The Additional Commissioner has, therefore, remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh inquiry and order regarding carving out of shares for allotment to parties. The parties to this petition are descendants of one Bhagwandin Parate. He dies intestate leaving behind him four sons viz., Bansilal, Bhaiyalal, Kunjilal and Babulal. According to parties, each one got ¼ share in the property left behind by deceased Bahgwandin. One son of Bhagwandin by name Bansilal expired in 1962 leaving behind him three sons. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 in this petition are sons of deceased Bansilal. The other son of Bansilal by name Ramlal also expired and left behind him widow, who is respondent No. 7 in this petition. Petitioners No. 4, 5 and 6 are the son of widow respectively of Bhaiyalal s/o Bhagwandin. Respondent No. 2 is Babulal s/o Bhagwandin Parate and respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 are sons of Babulal. Respondent No. 6 is wife of Babulal.

2. The present petitioner No. 1 Champalal filed a Civil Suit vide Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 1964 for partition and separate possession of his ¼th share. The said suit was decreed on 29-6-1971 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, and the learned Civil Judge has held that petitioner No. 1 is entitled to 1/16th share in the property. The said share as worked out was corrected by order dated 22-1-1980 to ¼th. As the agricultural lands were also to be partitioned, the Civil Judge, forwarded a precept under section 54 of Code of Civil Procedure to the Collector for that purpose. The Collector entrusted said job to Naib Tahsildar, Nagpur, who registered it as a revenue Case No. 1/S.R.V. 43/80-81. He issued notices to all interest parties and invited proposals and objections. Ultimately Naib Tahsildar passed an order on 18-11-1983. The present respondent No. 3 Parimal @ Madanlal s/o Babulal Parate felt aggrieved by this order and preferred appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer quashed the order of Naib Tahsildar and remanded the case back to Tahsildar, Nagpur, with directions that he should go through the report of Naib Tahsildar and after giving opportunity of being heard to all concerned parties should pass appropriate orders. This order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 21-9-1984. Tahsildar, Nagpur, again issued notice and invited proposals for effecting partition. The other parties as also petitioners submitted their proposals and present respondent No. 3 Parimal @ Madanalal raised his objection. All parties were then heard by the Tahsildar and then he passed his order on 18-12-1986. As per this order, the Tahsildar proceeded with partition of agricultural property situated at Mouza Shivangaon, Sonegaon, Bhamti, Khamla, Giripeth and Kokardi. The Tahsildar gave ¼th share each to four sons of deceased Babulal in all these agricultural lands. Respondent No. 3 Parimal @ Madanlal again felt aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar and he preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur. The Sub-Divisional Officer found that the Tahsildar has acted on account of powers delegated to him by the Collector and appeal therefore, did not be before the Sub-Divisional Officer and dismissed the appeal. Respondent No. 3 thereafter filed revision vide Revenue R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document