Consent orders binding parties must be honored unless evidence of fraud or misrepresentation is provided.

ORDER

09.02.2026

1. The petitioner, through the present petition, has challenged the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the Revisional Authority, i.e., the Court of Additional Commissioner, Jammu (with the powers of Divisional Commissioner), whereby the revision petition was disposed of with a direction to the court below to proceed with the partition in accordance with the applicable partition rules, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the interested persons/parties, and thereafter to pass an appropriate order. While passing the aforesaid order, the Revisional Authority further directed that any status quo order earlier issued by it shall stand vacated.

2. The impugned order was admittedly passed with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Before adverting to the rival submissions, reference is required to be made to order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the concerned Tehsildar, whereby the application for partition filed by respondent No. 4 was kept in abeyance and the applicants were advised to file a suit for possession in terms of Rule 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue (Partition) Rules, 1970.

3. For facility of reference, Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules is reproduced hereunder:

“12. Limitation for appeals, revisions and reviews-

(1) [Save as otherwise provided in this Act.] the period of limitation for an appeal under the last foregoing section shall be as follows:-

(a) When the appeal lies to the Collector or an Assistant Collector of the first class.

(b) When the appeal lies to the Financial Commissioner or Divisional Commissioner.

Provided that, in the Districts of Ladakh and Gilgit twice the ordinary period of limitation for appeals under this Section shall be allowed.

(2) Such provisions of the Limitation Act as apply to appeals, applications for revision and review in civil suits shall also apply to appeals, applications for revision and review under this Act.”

4. Since the petitioner, in the application filed before the concerned Tehsildar, admitted that he was not in possession of the land sought to be partitioned, the Tehsildar recorded a finding that the partition proceedings were barred under Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules.

5. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further drawn the attention of the Court to another communication dated 23.11.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Samba, whereby the concerned Tehsildar was directed to attend the office along with the partition file, on the ground that he had refused to effect partition at the final stage of the case, despite having obtained reports from his subordinate staff and field functionaries.

6. Pursuant thereto, the concerned Tehsildar passed an order dated 19.10.2020, whereby the Naib Tehsildar, Surara, was directed to deliver possession of the land to respondents No. 3 to 10 (private respondents herein) by evicting the petitioner. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Jammu (with the powers of Divisional Commissioner), which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

7. By virtue of the aforesaid order passed by the Revisional Authority, the matter was relegated to the court below with a direction to proceed with the partition in accordance with the applicable Partition Rules, after affording full opportunity of being heard to all interested persons/parties, and thereafter to pass an appropriate order. The said order came to be passed with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

8. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has assailed the said order on the ground that the same is contrary to the facts and law and is liable to be set aside.

9. It has been vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents No. 3 to 10 and Bharat Bhushan were not in possession of any portion of the land at any point of time. This fact, according to learned counsel, had already been admitted by the private respondents befo