Bhulla Ram and Others Vs Divisional Commissioner Mandi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 7454/2026 Decided on: 14.05.2026

Bhulla Ram & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Divisional Commissioner & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the petitioners: Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶5

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

¶6

Petitioners feel aggrieved against the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Mandi exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Shimla, H.P. whereby the revision petition preferred by respondent No.4 was accepted and the partition case was remanded to the Assistant Collector First Grade for deciding the objections raised by respondent No.4, in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

¶7

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2

¶9

2 . Respondent No.4 is stated to be more than 80 years old. He moved an application under Section 123 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 for partition of the land held jointly by the parties. The Assistant Collector First Grade processed the case and framed the mode of partition on 09.02.2022. The partition was accepted on 01.05.2023. The appeal filed by Respondent No.4 against the order dated 01.05.2023 was dismissed by the Sub Division Collector on 25.10.2024. Respondent No.4 thereafter filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, assailing the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Sub Division Collector as also the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade. The revision petition filed by Respondent No.4 having been allowed by the Divisional Commissioner on 27.03.2026 has given cause of action to the petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶10

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered

¶11

the case file.

¶12

4. The case file reflects that respondent No.4 raised objections before the Assistant Collector First Grade to the effect that the land adjacent to the road had not been properly partitioned; Land adjacent to the road had not been divided into equal shares; Land had not been partitioned according to its value in equal shares; Land allotted in partition had not been shown to respondent No.4 on the spot; and that the land allotted to respondent No.4 in partition ought

¶13

3

¶14

to have been shown to him on the spot so that he could also verify all

¶15

facts pertaining to the partition and allotment of the land.

¶16

It appears that the concerned Revenue Authorities summoned respondent No.4 three times for spot inspection, i.e. on 24.03.2023, 29.03.2023 and 10.04.2023. However, respondent No.4 did not appear before the concerned Revenue Authorities on the spot. Since respondent No.4 did not appear before the Assistant Collector First Grade, it was concluded that he had no objection regarding the allotment of the land. Summons were issued to respondent No.4 requiring his appearance before the Assistant Collector First Grade on 01.05.2023. In view of the report that respondent No.4 had refused to accept the summons, the Assistant Collector First Grade proceeded against him ex parte on 01.05.2023. The Assistant Collector First Grade recorded the statements of the present petitioners, who accepted the partition on the spot. The Assistant Collector First Grade held that since respondent No.4 did not appear on the spot, it would be presumed that he had no objection and, accordingly, the partition was accepted.

¶17

In my considered view, the Divisional Commissioner, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), had justifiably ordered the remand of the case for giving an opportunity to respondent No.4 to present his objections before the Assistant Collector First Grade. It has come on record that the wife of

¶18

4

¶19

respondent No.4 had remained hospitalized w.e.f. 16.03.2023 to 28.03.2023; ‘ Ithlahnamas’ were issued to respondent No.4 for his appearance on the spot on 24.03.2023, whereupon the son of respondent No.4 reportedly informed that his mother was hospitalized and his father was accompanying her in the hospital.

¶20

No doubt, despite service for appearing on the spot on 10.04.2023, respondent No.4 did not appear. He also did not appear before the Assistant Collector First Grade on 01.05.2023. Nonetheless, the fact remains that respondent No.4 had also made a statement before the Assistant Collector First Grade by raising objections to the partition on 28.01.2023. Even if respondent No.4 had not appeared before the Assistant Collector First Grade on 01.05.2023, the said authority was bound in law to consider the objections raised by him and satisfy itself that the partition had indeed been carried out in accordance with law. The Assistant Collector First Grade did not decide the objections raised by respondent No.4 and instead assumed that respondent No.4 had no objection merely because he failed to appear on the spot. Such recourse was erroneous. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, remanding the case to the Assistant Collector First Grade for deciding the objections raised by respondent No.4 and thereafter passing an appropriate order after hearing the parties.

¶21

5

¶22

However, before parting, it is ordered that the Assistant

¶23

Collector First Grade shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to the parties, and the parties are also directed to duly cooperate with the said authority for expeditious disposal of the partition proceedings. The concerned Assistant Collector First Grade, through the learned Deputy Advocate General, is directed to issue notice to all the concerned parties for appearance before him on a date to be fixed by the said authority within four weeks from today.

¶24

The instant petition is disposed of with above directions. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Bhulla Ram and Others v. Divisional Commissioner Mandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhulla Ram and Others v. Divisional Commissioner Mandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Raj and Others Vs Abhishek Jain and Others

Amit Kumar Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Manish Chand Katoch Vs the UOI and Others

Surinder Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pasang Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Anju Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others