Objections to the mode of partition must be raised timely; once a mode of partition attains finality, subsequent challenges based on procedural lapses or new factual claims not raised in lower courts are not maintainable in a writ petition.

1 Whether approved for reportting?

___________________________r______________________________________

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner feels aggrieved against the concurrent orders passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karsog, District Mandi, on 13.12.2019, the Collector, Sub Division Karsog, District Mandi on 12.10.2020 and the Divisional Commissioner Mandi [exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh] on 18.02.2026, hence, has preferred this writ petition.

The aforesaid orders had been passed in proceedings for partition of the land held jointly by all the parties. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the concerned Revenue Authorities had n ot prepared ‘Farad Kabja’ before framing mode of partition. ‘Farad Kabja’ would have reflected possession of the parties over specific portions of land. In absence of ‘Farad Kabja’, prejudice has been caused to the petitionuer. Further, inviting attention to para-4 of the worit petition, it was submitted that several khasra numCbers mentioned therein, could not have been partitioned at all. It was also contended that petitioner had raised specific objection about partition having not been effected on the spot in accordance with mode of partition. However, petitioner’s objections were not dealt with by the Revenue Authorities in accordance with law. On these grounds, prayer has been made for setting aside the concurrent orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

From the case, it emerges that: -

4(i) Parties are co-owners of the land in question. Some of the respondents moved an application under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (the Act in short), for partition of the land held by thHem jointly.

4(ii) Assistant Collector Secon d Grade, Karsog, processed the application and parties were summoned. Petitioner appeared before the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karsog on 29.01.2016 and requested for separating his khata. Mode of upartition was framed by the Assistant Collector Second oGrade, Karsog on 10.03.2016.

4(iii) Petitioner alongwith another co-owner filed appeal before the Collector against the mode of partition dated 10.03.2016. The appeal was accepted on 22.07.2016. Mode of partition dated 10.03.2016 was set aside on the ground that one Sh. Chint Ram, a co-owner, had not been impleaded as party to the partition proceedings. For this purpose, matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karsog.

4(iv) After remand, the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karsog, framed fresh mode of partition on 10.08.2017. Admittedly, this mode of partition attained finality as it was not assailed by any of the parties including the petitioner. The Revenue Authorities took consequent action for preparing partition papers, carrying out the partition in accordance with mode of partition dated 10.08.2017.

4(v) Partition papers were prepar ed by the concerned revenue officials. These were submitted to the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karsog, who heard the parties on 31.10.2019. Petitioner stated before the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karsogu that partition as carried out at the spot by the Reveonue Field Agency was acceptable to him. Some of theC co-owners objected by submitting that the land so partitioned and allotted to them had not been shown on the spot. The Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karsog, directed the concerned revenue officials to again visit the spot for showing the land to the parties. The Revenue Field Agency again visited the spot on 19.11.2019. The land partitioned and allotted was shown to the parties. Petitioner was also present on the spot. He did not raise any objection to the Naksha ‘J’. It has come in the concurrent orders passed by the Revenue Authorities that petitioner did not raise any objection at that stage to the land partitioned and allotted.

On receipt of the case file back, the Assis