Himachal Pradesh High Court
Balbir Singh Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Other on 27 December, 2018
Bench: Surya Kant, Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3036 of 2018
Date of Decision: 27.12.2018
.
_____________________________________________________________________
Balbir Singh Thakur .....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and other .....Respondents.
Coram:
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner:
rt M/s. Anuj Gupta & Rohit Sharma,
Advocates.
For respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General
with M/s. J.K. Verma, Adarsh K. Sharma
and Nand Lal Thakur, Additional
Advocate Generals for respondentState.
Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral):
Respondent No.4 (Rajender Parsad S/o Sh. Geeta Ram) applied to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Shimla (Rural) for partition of the suit land comprising joint holding. It appears that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Shimla recorded statements of the parties to those proceedings, who agreed for partition of the land as per their respective possession and share. However, when Tatima was prepared on the basis of said agreed order, the present petitioner, who was also party to those partition proceedings, found that the dimensions of his plot were totally different and were not in accordance with his possession. He consequently filed 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 22:32:01 :::HCHP 2Statutory Appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Shimla and his appeal was allowed by Sub Divisional Collector, Sub .
Division, Shimla (Rural) who vide order dated 27.12.2013 (Annexure P4) remanded the case to Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Shimla for afresh decision on merits.
2. The petitioner has placed on record all Zimni orders passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Shimla (Rural) from 9.10.2014 till of 9.11.2017. These orders would reveal that partition proceedings have been adjourned repeatedly for one reason or the other and thus the rt matter is still pending before the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Shimla (Rural).
3. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition with twofold grievance. Firstly he seeks a direction for speedy disposal of the pending proceedings by the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Shimla and secondly he alleges that the earlier order of partition which was passed with the consent of the parties has been erroneously mutated and reflected in the revenue record, even though it stands set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.12.2013.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General, it appears to us that most appropriate recourse at this stage would be to direct Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Shimla (Rural) to decide the Partition Case No. 11 of 2005 expeditiously but not later than three months, i.e., let the said proceedings be decided ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 22:32:01 :::HCHP 3 in all circumstances before 31st March, 2019 after following principle of natural justice, as we have not issued notice to respondent No.4. The .
entries made in the revenue record so far will be subject to the orders to be passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Shimla, as directed above.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
of Copy dasti.
(Surya Kant)
rt Chief Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
December 27, 2018
(Guleria/bhupender)
::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 22:32:01 :::HCHP