Civil courts lack jurisdiction to challenge partition proceedings by revenue authorities unless a question of title arises or jurisdictional defects are alleged, as prescribed by Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act.

JUDGMENT

Satyen Vaidya, J

1. By way of instant petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 31.08.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in CMA No. 260/2016 in Civil Suit No. 167/2015 whereby the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “Code”) has been dismissed.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in Civil Suit No.167 of 2015 and respondents herein are the plaintiffs. Hereafter, the parties shall be referred to by the same status as they hold in the civil suit.

3. The plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No.167 of 2015 seeking relief in following terms:

“It is, therefore, prayed that the suit for declaration that the order dated 22.10.2007 showing partition of land comprising in Khata No. 98, Khatauni No. 195, Khasra No. 91, 739, 741, 749, 750 Kita 5 measuring 0-40-97 Hectares situated at Mohal Samlua Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. entered in jamabandi 1995-1996, is wrong, illegal against the laws, arbitrary, against all norms of justice and principle of natural justice is null and void and is also nullity in the eyes of law and the plaintiffs are not bound by the same and it does not at all effects rights of the plaintiffs as co-owner in joint possession of the land and gives no right, title or interest to defendant No.1 & 2 to claim separation of land being manipulated one and is result of connivance and collusion between the defendants No. 1 & 2 the defendant No.5 the Tehsildar Palampur being a statuary authority as envisaged in the Land Revenue in accordance with is required to act with fundamental principal of judicial procedure and principal of natural justice had not acted in accordance with fundamental principal of judicial procedure and principal of natural justice has prepared false, baseless and wrong record to deliberately and intentionally in utter disregard to the principal of justice to show that no part of the land of parties the land under partition in case No. 209/2005 is on the road head or abutting road to cause loss to the plaintiff and wrongful gain, illegal advantage and benefit to the defendant No. 1 & 2 has wrongly and illegally passed the order dated 22-10-2007 so the subsequent change in the revenue record bearing a red note in the remarks column of the jamabandi 2005- 2006 showing the mutation No.1247 and thereafter Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 showing land in separate Khatas is merely a paper entry and the plaintiff and performa defendant No.7 are not bound by the wrong entries of the record and will not effect the status of the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 & 2 and performa defendant No. 7 of co-owner and in joint possession of the land and the entries are liable to be deleted and corrected in the column of ownership and possession in the revenue record prior to the order of the partitioned as joint owners and on joint possession no Dhakal of the partitioned has been issued to delivered the possession and no possession warrant has not been implemented so the order of the collector sub Division Palampur dated 03-12-2008 passed in case No.13/2008 and order dated 23-09-2010 passed in revision No. 98/2009 and order dated 30-12-2014 passed in by Financial Commissioner of Appeal H.P. Shimla passed on the basis of wrong record are also wrong, illegal and against all norms of justice are liable to be set aside with the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right to claim separation on the strength of order dated 22.10.2007 passed in case No. 209/2005 and also restraining the defendants, their relatives, friends, agents, servants, assignees and labourers, masons from interfering in the peaceful and physical possession of the plaintiff over the land and also from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the land and also encroaching upon the land or its any portion by raising forcibly construction or in any manner whatsoeve