Petitioner sought directions to hand over possession of land finalized by partition proceedings. Court noted pending civil litigation with a status quo order restraining alienation and changing possession. Held that respondents were justified in not handing over possession. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.468 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.09.2024
| Sanjeevna Kumari. | Versus |
...Petitioner. |
|---|---|---|
| Collector, Sub Divisio | n, Gagret & Ors. . | ..Respondents. |
| Coram: | ||
| Ms. Justice Jyotsna | Rewal Dua, Judge. | |
| Whether approved for | reporting?1 | |
| For the petitioner | : Mr. Ajay Sha Advocate with Sharma, Advocate |
rma, Senior Mr. Atharv . |
| For the respondents | : Mr. L.N. Sharma K. Sharma, Additi General, for respo 2. |
and Mr. Dalip onal Advocates ndents No.1 & |
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The case setup by the petitioner is that:-
1(i). The partition proceedings were initiated by the petitioner in respect of land measuring 0-23-74 hectares in Khewat No.144, Khatuni No.174, Khasra No.958 situated in Up Mohal Bhrahampur, Tehsil Ghanari, District Una (H.P.). 1(ii). The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade concernedrespondent No.2 finalized the partition proceedings vide order dated 14.07.2023.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-2-
1(iii). Respondent No.5-Sh. Sadhu Singh assailed the
order dated 14.07.2023 before the Sub Divisional Collectorrespondent No.1. The appeal was dismissed on 27.04.2024.
1(iv). The grievance of the petitioner as projected by the learned Senior Counsel is that subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal by the Collector on 27.04.2024, the petitioner moved an application before the Sub Divisional Collector on 19.06.2024 for taking consequential action on the basis of orders dated 14.07.2023 and 27.04.2024 by directing the concerned authorities to visit the spot and to handover the possession in terms of the orders passed in the partition case.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite representation having been preferred by the petitioner, the competent revenue authorities were not taking the partition proceedings to its logical conclusion. The possession in terms of the aforesaid orders had not been delivered to the petitioner.
-3-
Divisional Collector concerned. In terms of these instructions, the partition proceedings cannot be finalized and the possession in terms of the orders passed in partition case cannot be delivered to the parties on account of a civil litigation pending between the parties, wherein, learned Civil Judge IInd Amb, District Una (H.P.) in CMA No.235-VI-21 (Sadhu Singh s/o Sh. Hazara Singh vs. Amit Kumar & Ors.) has passed an interim order to the following fact:-
"Reply to application Under Order Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 has been filed. Application be listed for consideration on 25.06.2024. Till then the defendants are directed to maintain status quo qua nature construction and possession over the suit land are also restrained from alienating the suit land either in part or whole"
A copy of the aforesaid order has also been made part of the instructions. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner has got herself impleaded as a party to the litigation pending before the Civil Court.
In view of the civil ligation pending between the parties and in light of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Civil Judge directing to maintain status quo qua the nature, construction and possession over the suit land and
-4-
also restraining from alienating the suit land either in part or whole, the respondents at this stage are justified in not handing over the possession to the parties in terms of the order passed in the partition case. Hence, the relief as prayed for in the petition cannot be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua 12th September, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether revenue authorities are justified in withholding possession following a partition order while civil litigation regarding status quo is pending?
Sanjeevna Kumari
Collector, Sub Division, Gagret
Ors
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
