Objections regarding the non-preparation of a possession list ('Fard Kabja') cannot be raised after the mode of partition has attained finality through concurrent orders of multiple revenue authorities and subsequent acceptance of the spot partition by the party.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 23.09.2025, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, dismissing his Revision Petition and thereby, affirming the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Ramshehar, District Solan in partition case as also order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Collector Sub Division Nalagarh, District Solan.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file.

3. From the case file, it emerges that: -

3(i) Respondents moved an application on 01.02.2006 before the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Ramshehar, District Solan for partition of land held by the parties jointly. The Assistant Collector First Grade prepared the mode of partition on 19.03.2007 and sent the papers to the Field Kanungo ftor effecting partition on the spot.

3(ii) Petitioner assailed the mode of partition dated 19.03.2007 by filing an appeal before the Collector, Sub Division Nalagarh. Petitioner, inter alia, claimed adverse possession to the extent of ½ share in the land, claiming that he was in exclusive possession over the land in question w.e.f. May 1990. Petitioner also pleaded that he had filed a Civil Suit before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Nalagarh. He also took up the plea that the land in question had been transferred in his favour under a sale deed qua which Mutation No. 132 was attested on 22.09.2005. Petitioner asserted that Civil Suit instituted by him regarding title and possession of the land was pending, therefore, property in question could not be partitioned till the decision of the Civil Suit. Petitioner alleged that the Revenue Court had exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by ordering partition of the land. The Collector, Sub Division Nalagarh dismissed petitioner’s appeal on 05.05.2008. Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. Revision Petition was also dismissed on 22.03.2012. Petitioner carried the matter further and filed another Revision Petition tbefore the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. Petitioner’s second Revision Petition was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. on 09.07.2013. The Civil Suit instituted by the petitioner was dismissed on 31.12.2014.

3(iii) Mode of partition prepared on 19.03.2007 thus attained finality after dismissal of the petitioner’s second Revision Petition by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. on 09.07.2013. The partition proceedings were again taken up by the Revenue Authorities. The instrument of partition was prepared on 12.07.2018 by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Ramshehar, District Solan. The order dated 12.07.2018 was also assailed by the petitioner before the Collector, Sub Division Nalagarh, by preferring an appeal. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 07.02.2020. Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division (exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. on 23.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ‘Fard Kabja’ had not been prepared by the Revenue Authorities. Had ‘Fard Kabja’ been prepared, the possession of the parties over specific portions of the land would have been depicted as on spot. Nont preparation of ‘Fard Kabja’ had caused prejudice the petitioner. It was also contended that partition carried out by the Revenue Authorities on the spot was not in terms of mode of partition. These objections have not been properly dwelled into by the Revenue Authorities.

5. Objection of ‘Fard Kabja’ having not been prepared