Bakshi Ram vs Smt. Amarti Devi and Others

S.S. Sidhu, I.A.S.

Shri Bakshi Ram has assailed the order dated 11-1-1990 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, passed in Appeal No. 152/89 by way of this revision petition.

The brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that Shri Bakshi Ram, Petitioner filed an application on 20-9-1983 before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hamirpur stating that he was one of the Joint owners of the land described therein along with Smt Amarti Devi and five Ors. and requested that his share be separated by effecting partition. The mode of partition was drawn on 20-9-1986 by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hamirpur and final partition was sanctioned on 19-5-1987. The order of final partition was challenged by Smt. Amarti Devi before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, who accepted her appeal partially and remanded the case to the Revenue Officer at first instance for acting in accordance with his directions Feeling dis-satisfied with this order dated 11-4-1989 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, Shri Bakshi Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 11-1-1990. Now Shri Bakshi Ram has come in revision before us against the order dated 11-1-1990 of the Commissioner.

We have heard the arguments adduced by Shri G.D. Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also Shri P.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. The perusal of record reveals that main contention of the Petitioner is that the partition as modified by the learned Sub-Divisional Collector had nullified the exchange that had taken place between him and the husband of Smt. Amarti Devi, Respondent No 1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that Abadi of the Petitioner and the Respondent are adjoining and the Petitioner had exchanged l/4th of his share in Khasra No. 265 (old) to the extent of 40 Sq meters by a piece of land measuring 31 Sq meters, being a portion of Khasra No. 263, with the husband of Smt. Amarti Devi, he also stated that intention behind the exchange was that the Petitioner would stay undisturbed in the land acquired by him in Khasra No. 263 as a result of this exchange. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 argued that a piece of land acquired by the Petitioner in consequence of the relevant exchange had to fell into the common spot subject to adjustment at the time of partition

It is on record that the learned Sub-Divisional Collector inspected the spot on 4-2-1989 in the presence of the parties. It was because of his spot inspection that he found it proper to modify the order of final partition passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. Such a modification required the allotment to the Petitioner of a piece of land from Anr. field namely Khasra No. 265. As mentioned by the learned Commissioner in his order, both these Khasra numbers are included in the Khata, which was sought to be partitioned The ''fard qabza mauqa'' was prepared on the spot. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 argued that the mode of partition had not been challenged by any one and as such the same had become final. He also laid stress on the point that a co-sharer can make transfer in column of possession. We have considered the application of the Petitioner for permission to produce copy of Roznamcha dated 16-10-1966 and copy of mutation dated 8-11-1966 under Order 41, Rule 27 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is a settled law that additional evidence cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Petitioner ought to have made such an application before the Revenue Officers below. At the revision stage, we do not have to go into the factum of possession, which is in favour of the Respondent No. 1 according to the record produced before the Revenue Officers below. At this stage, only legal issues have to be gone through. As such, this application for additional evidence stands rejected. We find no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Sub-Divisional Collector and the Commissioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Order be communicated.