Frivolous and vexatious litigation should be weeded out at the outset to protect valuable court time and ensure genuine litigants have access to justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner No.1 (minor) is daughter and petitioner No.2 is wife of late Kacho Gazanfer Ali. Respondents No.10 to 15 are brothers and sisters of late Kacho Gazanfer Ali. The father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 late Kacho Gazanfer Ali and respondents No.10 to 15 are sons and daughters of late Kacho Akber Ali Khan, the estate holder. The estate holder late Kacho Akber Ali Khan had proprietary land and residential building at Zamystang. With the complaint that the brothers were selling out the property left behind by the estate holder late Kacho Akber Ali Khan, respondent No.10 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Kargil for demarcation, partition and possession of the landed property left behind by the estate holder and held by all his brothers and sisters jointly. The said application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Kargil on 01.06.2022. The Deputy Commissioner, Kargil assigned the application to the Assistant Commissioner Revenue (Assistant Collector 1st Class), Kargil.

2. The Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Kargil treated the application filed by respondent No.10 as an application under Section 105 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996 [‘the Act’] and issued notice to the petitioners herein. Further proceedings in the application were conducted on 06.06.2022, 09.06.2022, 15.06.2022 and 27.06.2022 in presence of the parties. On 12.08.2022 and 15.09.2022, when the partition application was taken up by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, the non-applicants therein/petitioners absented. The Assistant Commissioner, Kargil proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of material available before him and passed an ex parte order on 07.10.2022 and directed Tehsildar, Kargil to demarcate the land, make partition and put the applicant (respondent No.10 herein) into possession of his share.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners herein filed WP(C) No. 2817/2022 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.02.023 by passing a consent order. The order impugned in the said writ petition, passed by the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Kargil was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Kargil with a direction to reconsider the matter himself and pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of four weeks, strictly in accordance with the rules occupying the field. This is how the matter came up for consideration before the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Kargil on remand. The petitioners herein filed their objections before the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Kargil, opposing the application of respondent No.10 for demarcation, partition and possession of the subject property taking, inter alia, the following objections to the maintainability of the application:

(i) That the application for demarcation, partition and possession filed by respondent No.10 was not maintainable in the absence of the all co-sharers being impleaded as party respondents. It is submitted that the estate holder late Kacho Akter Ali Khan was survived by four sons, three sisters, a daughter of his deceased son, namely Kacho Gazanfer Khan and, respondent No.10 (the applicant) had only impleaded three brothers, namely Kacho Liaqat Ali, Kacho Mohd and Kacho Gazanfer; and,

(ii) That the estate holder, late Kacho Akbar Ali had, during his life time, partitioned privately his property equally among all his legal heirs on 10.09.1989 in the presence of witnesses by executing a settlement deed. The said private partition effected by the estate holder was never disputed by any of his legal heirs, either during his life time or thereafter for more than 30 years. It is, thus, contended that the subject property, having been already partitioned privately, cannot be made subject matter of partition again by filing an application under Section 105 of the Act.

4. In the face of an objecti