Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir and P.S. Rana, JJ.
Simrata Devi widow of Sh. Bhupinder Dutt and another - Appellants
Versus
Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeals) State of H.P. Shimla and others -Respondents
LPA No. 170 of 2010
Decided on : 7-9- 2015
Partition - H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 - Section 123, Section 16 - [Section 123, Section 16] - The court discussed the mode of partition under Section 123 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 and the procedure for review of orders under Section 16. It emphasized the finality of the mode of partition prepared by the revenue officer and the distinction between modification of original orders in partition proceedings and modification of executory orders sent to field agency for compliance.
Fact of the Case:
Shri Suchinder and others filed for partition of immovable land under Section 123 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1953. The Assistant Collector prepared a mode of partition on 12.12.2001, and subsequent proceedings led to a dispute regarding the partition of specific land parcels.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assistant Collector's order of 20.6.2003 was a modification of the executory order and not a review of the original mode of partition. It held that the original mode of partition had attained finality and that the limitation for altering the executory order did not apply.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Assistant Collector's order, the nature of the relief sought by the appellants, and the requirement for prior sanction of the revenue officer for modification of orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the finality of the mode of partition prepared by the revenue officer, the distinction between modification of original orders and executory orders, and the requirement for prior sanction for modifying original orders in partition proceedings.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1141 of 2006 titled Simrata Devi vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeal) dated 22.4.2010.
P.S. Rana
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1141 of 2006 decided on 22.4.2010 titled Simarata Devi and another vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue and others.
Brief facts of the case
2. Shri Suchinder and others had filed application for partition of immovable land under Section 123 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1953 relating to immovable land comprised in Khata No. 46, Khatauni No. 118 to 122, Khasra Nos. 420, 427, 867, 935, 936, 937, 877, 883, 888, 889, 895, 896, 934, 876, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 887, 894, 940, 419 measuring 3-47- 57 Hect. situated in village Daroh Tehsil Palampur District Kangra (H.P.) as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95. On 12.12.2001 Assistant Collector 2nd Grade framed mode of partition and thereafter file was sent to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for further proceedings. On 22.02.2002 the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Palampur affirmed the mode of partition passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. Thereafter on 2.6.2003 Suchinder and others had filed petition before the Assistant Collector pleading therein that front portion of Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 measuring 0-21-88 Hect. is touching road side 69 metres in length and all co-sharers have equal rights relating to road side land as per their shares. In petition it is pleaded that value of immovable land comprised in Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 is fifty times more as compared to other immovable land. It is pleaded that although it was mentioned in mode of partition that Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 would be partitioned but executing reference relating to mode of partition sent to field agency did not mention about partition of Khasra Nos. 888 and 889. It is pleaded that in case Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 are not partitioned then applicants would suffer irreparable loss. On 20.6.2003 the Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed the order that executing reference sent to field agency was not sent in consonance with original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 20.6.2003 directed that amended executing reference to field agency be sent strictly in accordance with the original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001.
3. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 20.6.2003 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Smt. Simrata Devi and others filed appeal before the Collector Sub Division Palampur and the Collector Sub Division Palampur dismissed the appeal with the observations that original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 was passed by the Assistant Collector in presence of Samrita Devi. The Collector Palampur further held that in original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 at Sr. No. 5 it was ordered that Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 would be partitioned inter se the parties as per their shares. The Collector further held that order dated 20.6.2003 was not passed in violation of original order of mode of partition but passed only to correct the clerical errors in executory order. The Collector held that order was only executory in nature without modification of original order of mode of partition. The Collector further held that there was no need to obtain prior sanction of the Collector as impugned order was not review of original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001.
4. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved against the order of the Collector Smt. Samrita Devi and others had filed revision petition No. 73 of 2004 titled Simrata Devi and another vs. Suchinder Dutt and others under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on 17.5.2006 and upheld the order passed by Collector.
5. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved against order of the Financial Commissioner Simrata Devi and others had filedCWP No. 1141 of 2006 titled Simrata Devi and another vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeal)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
