AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.4.2006, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the revision petition was dismissed and the recommendation made by the Divisional Commissioner was not accepted by the Financial Commissioner.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that private respondent No. 1 Rikhi Ram filed an application for partition of land, held jointly by him with the present petitioner Kaushlya Devi, before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hamirpur. Petitioner Kaushlya Devi raised objections regarding the allotment of Khalwara to Rikhi Ram and the mode of partition was prepared on 18.6.1993 and confirmed on 23.11.1993.
An appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) on 27.9.1994. In this appeal, the claim of Kaushlya Devi was that whereas she should have got 1 kanal 1 marla of land she had only been given 19 marla of land and therefore, there was a shortfall of 2 marla. Her main grievance was that the Khalwara measuring 5 malra should have been partitioned between all the shareholders as per their shares. Her other grievance was that the area of the Khatari (place where the water is stored) had been reduced from 2 marlas to 1 marla and this had been given to the other party. The Assistant Collector found that the Khatari was only 1 marla and this had been kept under the joint ownership of all the co-shares so that they could all use the water. The remaining 1 marla had been included in the partition scheme. Both the authorities found that it would not advisable to partition the gair mumkin Khalwara to all the shareholders since it is already a very small piece of land and the Khatari was kept joint.
The present petitioner filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi who held that from the records it was found that some abadi land had been partitioned which could not have been partitioned by the revenue officer and, therefore, recommended that the orders be set aside. The learned Financial Commissioner did not accept the recommendations of the Divisional Commissioner and hence this petition.
From the records, which I have carefully perused, it is apparent that the petitioner Kaushlya Devi had never raised an objection that abadi land should not be partitioned. Both the parties had agreed to the partition of all the khasra numbers including Khasra No. 980 which is shown as abadi. Therefore, the learned Financial Commissioner was right in holding that the petitioner could not be permitted to raise this technical point at a later stage. The Khalwara could not have been partitioned since it was only a small area measuring 5 marla and when partition takes place there can always be small differences in the share of the person and the land actually allotted to that person.
Therefore, I find no illegality in the order of the Finance Commissioner, calling for interference in exercise of the powers of superintendence. Hence the petition is dismissed. No costs.