Smt. Hemlata Singh vs Collector, District Pithoragarh and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Appellant approached the appropriate authority seeking permission to alienate the land, in question, in favour of someone. Permission was denied. He, accordingly, approached the Court and filed a writ petition. The writ petition has been dismissed. Accordingly, the present appeal has been filed.

In the present appeal, an intervention application has been filed by two persons, who claim that the land, in question, is ancestral land, which was a tea garden and, accordingly, under the law, such land cannot be transferred by any of the heirs, who is, otherwise, entitled to a share in the land left by his deceased ancestor. In addition to that they have also contended that if it is deemed that the deceased ancestor has left transferable right in favour of his heirs in such tea garden land, each such heir has undivided share in every square inch of such land and, accordingly, until partition of such land is effected, each of such heirs is, in law, a necessary party to a lis in which any direction is being sought pertaining to such land.

In answer, it was contended by the Appellant that a partition has been effected between the Appellant and the interveners. The interveners contend that there is no partition decree as yet by a competent court of law, and the revenue records, upon which reliance is being placed, has got no sanctity of law until in an appropriate proceeding, a partition decree is passed.

Inasmuch as the Appellant has not been able to bring on record any partition decree among the heirs of the original owner, who was the owner of the said tea garden, we are constrained to accept the contention of the interveners and, accordingly, feel that in their absence, no direction can be issued in relation to the land, in question, as prima facie, it appears that interveners too have equal right as that of the Appellant. The intervention application is, accordingly, allowed.